BX 



ute 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



1 



# : # 

(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, t 



CAUSES AND EVILS 



OF 



CONTENTIONS 



UNVEILED IN 



LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS. 



BY NOAH WORCESTER, 



BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY GRAY & BOW EN. 

1831. 



4> 
*1> 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 
1831, by Gray & Bowen, in the Clerk's Office of the 
District Court of Massachusetts. 



The Library 

of Congress 



WASHINGTON 



Peirce & Parker Printers. 



CONTENT S. 



LETTER T. Introductory Observations, 5 
11 II. A Primary Ground of Alienation among Chris- 
tians, - 9 

" III. The Truth as hated by the Wicked, - - 17 

" IV. An Important Question answered, 22 
" V. Two Examples of Error from the Ambiguity 

of Language, 33 

" VI. The Messiah's censures of the Scribes and 

Pharisees, 41 

" VII. PauPs censures of Schismatic Teachers, - 46 

" VIII. PauFs account of the Natural Man, - - 51 

" EX. The Injunctions and Examples of Christ, - 60 

" X. PauPs Reasonings with Contending Christians, 69 

" XI. The Apostle James on Censorious Judging, - 73 

" XII. False Standards occasion False Estimates, - 77 

" XIII, The Disregarded Parable, - 86 

" XIV. Example of the Four Evangelists, 91 

11 XV. Pernicious Effects of Censorious Judging, - 95 

" XVI. Vices Compared, - - - - 100 

" XVII. The Gospel Remedy for Contention, - - 104 

"XVIII. Conclusion, 114 

Postscript, 119 



LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Knowing that the time of his crucifixion was 
at hand, our Saviour took an opportunity to prepare 
the minds of his disciples for the event, by commu- 
nicating such instructions as they were then able to 
bear, and such as he wished them to observe. It 
was in this discourse that he gave them his " New 
Commandment" which he repeated again and again 
" that ye love one another as I have loved you." 
He also said to them, " By this shall all men know 
that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to anoth- 
er." He forewarned them of the trials which they 
would have to endure as his disciples, and promised 
to send to them the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Spirit. He not only assured them that they were 
beloved by himself, but also beloved by the Father 
At the close of the interview he poured forth the 
desires of his soul in fervent prayer to the Father, 



6 LETTERS 

not only for his apostles but for all that should be- 
come believers on him through the instrumentality 
of their preaching in his name. The following are 
important portions of his prayer. " Neither pray I 
for these alone, but for them also who shall believe 
on me through their word ; that they all may be one 
as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they 
may be one in us, that the world may know that 
thou hast sent me." John 17. 20, 21. 

It is remarkable of what importance it seems to 
have been in his view that his apostles and all his 
disciples should love one another, and be one as he 
and the Father are one. But why this fervency for 
love and union among his disciples ? The reason 
is assigned in the following words — " That the 

WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME." 

To believe that the Father sent him was to believe 
that he was not an impostor, but the promised Mes- 
siah, whom God had sent to be the Light and the 
Saviour of the world. 

The words of Christ very clearly import that in 
his view the progress of the gospel and the conver- 
sion of the world to the Christian faith, greatly de- 
pended on the mutual love and union of those who 
believe in him ; that such love and union are adapt- 
ed to bring others to believe in him, as the way, the 
truth, and the life. When Christians thus walk in 
love th^y exhibit the true spirit of Christ and his 
gospel, excite attention and inquiry, command es- 
teem, and produce conviction of the reality and 
usefulness of the Christian religion. The spirit 



TO CHRISTIANS. 7 

of Christ then appears to great advantage in con- 
trast with the spirit of party and of the world. 

Another truth of awful import is implied in this 
prayer of Christ, which is, that alienation and dis- 
cord among professed believers in Christ, tend to 
prevent the conversion of others, and to promote 
infidelity. If the oneness of Christians, or their 
mutual love tends to multiply conversions, to the 
Christian faith, discord and alienation must have 
the contrary tendency. 

May it not then be a solemn truth that the party 
strifes and contentions among professed believers in 
Christ, have been the principal reasons why the 
world ere this day has not been filled with the 
benign influence of the Gospel — why so great a 
part of the world is yet enveloped in pagan dark- 
ness, and why Deism, and even Atheism still show 
their heads in Christian lands ? How awful and 
affecting is the thought that the dying prayer of 
our Lord has had so little influence on the minds 
of his avowed friends, and that their anti-christian 
conduct has been the means of preventing the pro- 
gress of the Gospel and the salvation of their fellow 
men ! What real friend of Christ with his prayer 
in view, can reflect on the ecclesiastical history of 
Christendom, or observe the contentions among 
Christians at the present day, without feeling 
shocked, grieved and ashamed ? Surely if mu- 
tual love, or union among Christians be an ap- 
pointed means for the spread of the Gospel, and 
the conversion of the world, it behooves Christians 



8 LETTERS 

seriously to inquire what each has to do that the 
stumbling block may be removed. It is not to^be 
supposed that the evil is limited to any one or two 
denominations — nor that the evil can be removed 
by mutual sectarian reproaches as a substitute for 
mutual love. If the people of each sect will im- 
partially examine at home, and correct what may be 
found amiss, they will perhaps find enough to do in 
the work of self-reformation, and in cultivating that 
humility of heart without which mutual love can 
never exist among Christians. 

All well informed Christians must acknowledge 
that the conversion of the world to the Christian 
faith, is a desirable event, and one which has long 
been predicted. If the fulfilment of the prophecy 
has been prevented or retarded by the want of mu- 
tual love among Christians, or by the existence of a 
contrary spirit, this state of things must have re- 
sulted from causes which should be sought out and 
set aside. It is possible that much of the evil has 
resulted from the adoption of some erroneous prin- 
ciple or principles, which for want of due examina- 
tion may have seemed to justify schism and alien- 
ation. 

No intelligent Christian will dare to say that the 
prayer of the Messiah, that his disciples might be 
one was foolish, or unreasonable. If then it shall 
be found that a principle has been extensively 
adopted which tends to defeat the object of this 
prayer, or which is incompatible with the oneness 
for which Christ prayed, we may pretty safely infer 



TO CHRISTIANS. 9 

that the principle is false and delusive. Or if cer- 
tain passages of Scripture have been so interpreted 
as to favor such a principle, we may infer that the 
interpretations are erroneous. To show that such 
a principle and such interpretations have been 
adopted will be the object of succeeding Letters ; 
and in doing this I hope to unveil the root of bit- 
terness and show its deleterious nature. 



LETTER II. 

A PRIMARY GROUND OE ALIENATION AMONG CHRIS- 
TIANS. 

My Christian Brethren, 

For a long time it has been with me an object 
to ascertain the principle which has for ages been 
the occasion of alienation and bitterness among 
Christians. It is not however to be supposed that 
the whole of the evil is to be ascribed to any one 
principle or cause ; but, on mature reflection it is 
my belief, that a large portion of the mischief is to 
be ascribed to the following hypothesis, — That error 
of opinion on religious subjects proceeds from wick- 
edness of heart. 

I have not been able to find any other hypothesis 



10 LETTERS 

or principle which so naturally accounts for the 
alienation and hostilities which are so common 
between men of different opinions ; and this prin- 
ciple has often been avowed by persons of different 
sects. On what other principle can I feel alienation 
from a brother whose opinions happen to be different 
from mine, as to the meaning of a text of Scripture ? 
As every man necessarily regards his own opinions 
as correct, if I have adopted the principle that error 
proceeds from depravity, I shall naturally impute 
blame to every man who dissents from me. But if 
I have not adopted this principle, and have candor 
enough to account for the supposed error of my 
brother on excusable grounds, I see no cause at all 
for alienation or censure. If in addition to this 
candor, I possess humility and self-knowledge 
enough to believe, that it is very possible the error 
in the case, may be on my own part, this will surely 
make me very cautious in regard to imputing the 
difference of opinion to my brother's depravity. 

As it is my intention to examine the subject 
impartially, I shall here admit, that wickedness of 
heart is one of many occasions of error on religious 
subjects. In some cases it may be the principal 
cause; but in others it may have no influence at 
all. 

The hypothesis that error always proceeds from 
wickedness of heart, considered as a principle of con- 
duct among Christians, appears to me of the most 
pernicious tendency, and to have as fair a claim to 
be regarded as the fruit of a wicked heart, as any 



TO CHRISTIANS. 11 

doctrine by which any denomination of Christians 
has been known. What I have now advanced re- 
specting it 1 shall aim to illustrate by various facts 
and considerations. 

1. If the principle is just and may be safely acted 
upon, it is a weapon which may be wielded by each 
sect against all others. For conscientious men of 
every sect must regard every thing as error which 
contradicts their own real opinions. Each must 
therefore think that if any one has a right to apply 
the principle, it must be so with himself. His oppo- 
nent may think the same. Hence a scene of 
mutual accusation and reproach will naturally 
result. But who can conceive of a more anti- 
christian state of society, than this principle would 
produce, if universally adopted and reduced to prac- 
tice? 

2. The principle encourages the indulgence of a 
temper the reverse of that which is inculcated by the 
Gospel. " Let each esteem others better than him- 
self" — Charity or love " thinketh no evil — hopeth all 
things" — <; worketh no ill to its neighbor." How 
different the feelings indulged by him who imputes 
the supposed errors of dissenting brethren to the 
wickedness of their hearts. He will of course 
think himself better than others — think evil of them, 
hope little or nothing ; and what he calls love will 
work evil to his neighbor, and dispose him to defame 
and revile. The more his mind is imbued with this 
principle, the more he will trust in himself that he 
is righteous and despise others. 



If LETTERS 

Every man who has sense enough to know that 
the opinions of others differ from his, may also 
know that his opinions differ from theirs. How 
then are we to account for the fact, that of the 
many who ascribe error to the depravity of heart, so 
few of them are seen to suspect that their own 
opinions proceed from this corrupt source ? Does 
not this single fact evince a great want of self- 
knowledge and humility, too great a propensity to 
look abroad for faults, and too little desire to cleanse 
first that which is within ? 

3. From the preceding remarks it would be very 
natural to suspect, that the censorious principle has 
been much more frequently adopted by men who 
were themselves in gross errors, than by those who 
delight in the truth. It may therefore be proper to 
look into history and inquire, who have been the 
men most forward to act on this principle ? 

If we go back to the time of the Messiah's minis- 
try, we shall find that the principle was applied to him, 
and that on this ground he was accused, arraigned, 
and crucified. He dissented from the pharisees as 
to what was lawful to be done on the Sabbath ; 
on which ground they said, " We know that this man 
is a sinner" He claimed to be " the Son of God ;" 
this they pronounced to be blasphemy, and deserv- 
ing of death. On which part was the error in 
these cases ? 

Who was in error when Paul thought he " ought 
to do many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth V 
or when the apostles were persecuted as men who 



TO CHRISTIANS. 13 

turned the icorld upside down 1 Who was in the 
wrong when papists persecuted the protestants ? Or 
when the English hierarchy caused our ancestors to 
emigrate to this country ? In all these cases the 
persecutors acted on the principle that error pro- 
ceeds from wickedness of heart. Indeed this is 
the fundamental principle of all persecution. 

Should it be asked, who were in the wrong when 
protestants persecuted papists? I answer, the pro- 
testants. The papists might be in error respect- 
ing the questions in dispute ; but in persecuting 
them for their opinions, the protestants acted on the 
worst error of popery. It has been so in all the 
forms of persecution which protestants of different 
sects have carried on against each other. In how 
many instances have honest and peaceable men 
been persecuted because they refused to engage 
in the works of war and military murder ! Or 
because they were unwilling to engage in sectarian 
strife ! 

4. Every man deems the principle in question 
unjust, when acted upon towards himself. Even 
the men who are most forward to impute error to 
wickedness of heart, are very sure to raise the cry 
of persecution when others apply the principle to 
themselves. This is surely a circumstance which 
deserves attention. For it is similar to what uni- 
formly occurs in the sanguinary wars of nations. 
On each side the partizans practise and justify 
revenge in their own soldiers, but condemn the 
same thing as murder when practised by the oppos- 
ing party. 



14 LETTERS 

5. It will probably be neither denied nor doubted 
that the papal Inquisition was founded on the prin- 
ciple that error of opinion proceeds from wicked- 
ness of heart ; nor that the myriads of victims 
which have been murdered by these terrific tribu- 
nals, were put to death on the same principle. 
Should it be said that this has been an abuse of the 
principle ; I may ask, when has the principle ever 
been applied but in acts of abuse or injustice? 

6. This principle when associated with party 
spirit has often so bewildered the minds of men, 
that they have thought ihey were pleasing God by 
the most flagrant violations of his law, and by the 
most atrocious acts of injustice towards fellow men. 
By such delusions men were led to fulfil our Lord's 
prediction, " The time will come when he that kill- 
eth you will think he doeth God service." Under 
such a malignant influence men can seldom see any 
thing good in the objects of their censure ; for they 
are prepared to impute the most benevolent and self- 
denying acts to wicked motives, or a diabolical 
agency; and if reproved for their censoriousness 
they can exclaim, " Thou wast altogether born in 
sin, and dost thou teach us ?" Though this excla- 
mation may seldom be expressed in these words, it 
may be intelligibly expressed by contemptuous smiles 
insinuations and gestures. 

7. Were it a revealed and unquestionable truth, 
that error always proceeds from depravity of heart, 
still no uninspired person could safely act on the 
principle in his treatment of Christian brethren. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 15 

For when a disagreement of opinion occurs between 
brethren as to the meaning of a text of Scripture ; 
who that is not inspired, can certainly know that the 
error is not on his own part? In such a case, humil- 
ity, benevolence, and a consciousness of liability to 
err, would naturally restrain the meek and lowly 
from wielding the weapon of censure against his 
brother's heart ; yet the self-sufficient Pharisee would 
not hesitate practically to say to his dissenting broth- 
er, " Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou;" 
it is owing to the wickedness of your heart that you 
do not see with me. Be as humble as I am, and you 
will think as I do. 

Is it not then, a clear case that this principle is far 
less likely to be resorted toby the righteous, than by 
the wicked ? When this weapon falls into the hands 
of party spirit, it will assuredly be employed for party 
purposes, and those who wield it, will be pretty sure 
to call evil good and good evil, to put darkness for 
light and light for darkness. What is evil in them- 
selves, they will call good ; and what is good in 
others, they will call evil. It was obviously so, with 
the persecutors of our Lord. While they appear to 
have had no concern, lest the error should be found 
on their own part, his benevolent acts were viewed 
by them as acts of wickedness, and deserving of 
death. " For a good work we stone thee not," was 
their plea, and such is generally the plea of persecu- 
tors and revilers in every age and country. What 
person was ever persecuted on the accusation that 
he was a good man ? 



16 LETTERS 

There are many opinions avowed by persons of 
different sects at the present day, which appear to 
me very erroneous ; but seldom have I heard an 
opinion avowed, that I could not account for, other- 
wise, than by imputing it to depravity of heart. 
When I reflect how contrary it must be to the na- 
ture of humility and benevolence to impute a broth- 
er's opinions to his wickedness, while there is noth- 
ing else in his character to lead to such a conclu- 
sion, I am often amazed to hear the principle avow- 
ed by men who in other respects appear to be good 
people. 

Excepting the principles which justify deciding 
political disputes by national hostilities, I know not 
another, which I think has done a tenth part so 
much mischief, as that which imputes error on reli- 
gious subjects to wickedness of heart. If the nature 
of a tree is to be known by its fruits, or the nature 
of a principle by its practical results, the censorious 
principle now under review, may well be denomina- 
ted the Bohon Upas of the Christian world. It is a 
tree which has extended its branches and its poison- 
ous influence over every Christian country, changing 
the milk of brotherly kindness into the bitter waters 
of hatred and censure, and causing contention, cal- 
umny and persecution to reign triumphant, where 
nothing should have been known but peace and love, 
with their genuine fruits, 



TO CHRISTIANS. 17 

LETTER III. 

THE TRUTH AS HATED BY THE WICKED, 

My Christian Brethren, 

The word truth frequently occurs in the Bible, 
and also in controversial writings. It has been 
common to represent that the hearts of sinners are 
naturally opposed to the truth, and to account for 
supposed error of opinion by ascribing it to hatred 
of the truth. Uncharitable Christians of different 
sects, have too frequently reproached each other as 
enemies to the truth, and on this ground each, 
perhaps, has accounted for what he believed to be 
error in the other. 

As the term truth is used in the Bible, it has 
several significations. When used in relation to 
facts, it is the opposite to falsehood — in relation to 
opinion, it is the opposite to error — in relation to 
promises, it is the opposite to unfaithfulness — in 
relation to commands, it is the opposite to partiality 
or injustice — in relation to moral character, it is the 
opposite to unrighteousness, and is of the same 
import as uprightness or moral rectitude. " God is 
true ;" and in the same sense that " God is light:" 
and " God is love," it may be said " God is truth" 
He is the source and fountain of truth in all its 
forms or significations. As his benevolence and 
righteousness are expressed in the law, and in the 
Gospel, these are called the truth. Jesus came " to 



IS LETTERS 

bear witness of the truth ; and he said of himself, 
" I am the way, the truth, and the life." To delight 
in goodness or in doing good, is to delight in the 
truth. To walk in obedience to the law of love and 
to do what is right, is to walk in the truth. 

There are truths innumerable and of various 
classes. Every art or science has its system of 
truths. In the Bible we have historical and geo- 
graphical truths, as well as those of a moral or re- 
ligious nature. Whatever is right or true, is the 
truth. 

In what sense of the word then, may it be said 
that the sinner is opposed to the truth ? Would it 
not be in vain to try to convince him that his heart 
is opposed to such truths as the following : — Eight 
and two are ten — Paris is the capital of France — 
Alfred was once the king of England ? Should we 
succeed better in attempting to convince him that 
he hates the following Scriptural truths. " In the 
beginning God created the heavens and the earth'* 
— Jesus was born in Bethlehem — he was crucified 
on Calvary — God raised him from the dead — God so 
loved the world that he sent his Son that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life. It is possible that an Atheist or a Deist 
might become convinced that he had hated these 
truths; but it is believed that no person who had 
grown up in the belief that the Bible is of divine 
authority could be convinced that he ever hated 
such truths, any more than that he hated the truth 
which affirmed his own existence. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 19 

When by truth, is meant the righteous require- 
ments and prohibitions of God, it may with propriety 
be said that the habitual transgressor hates the truth ; 
and it may not be in vain to try to convince him of 
this fact. Men are of course opposed to whatever 
opposes their governing propensity. The covetous 
worldling is opposed to the command, " Thou shaty 
love thy neighbor as thyself." The revengeful man 
is opposed to the precept, " Love your enemies." 
The drunkard is opposed to the laws of temperance, 
and the delaying sinner is opposed to the command 
" Repent" — " Cease to do evil, and learn to do well." 

The just requirements of a benevolent earthly 
parent, are the truth, in the same sense that God's 
law is the truth. They prescribe what is right for 
the son to do. The disobedient son, whose heart is 
devoted to gambling and dissipation, hates his father's 
commands and prohibitions; and in so doing, he 
hates the truth. But it does not hence follow, that 
he hates the truths which affirm the existence of his 
father, and that his father is a good man, who is 
ready to forgive him as soon as he shall repent. 

Preceptive truth is a rule of duty. Historical 
and doctrinal truths, furnish motives to obedience. 
While men are under the dominion of unbridled 
passions, they may be said to hate the law of 
truth, which requires of them self-denial, and the 
devotion of their hearts and their all to God. From 
the same influence they may disregard the divine 
threatenings and make " light" of the offer of pardon 
and salvation. While they delight in the ways of 



20 LETTERS 

sin, they love darkness rather than light, and will 
not come to the light, lest their deeds should be re- 
proved. Their ardor to gratify their lusts, disposes 
them to turn a deaf ear both to the requirements of 
God, and the motives to obedience. But there are 
a multitude of important truths contained in the Bi- 
ble, to which the sinner is no more opposed than he 
is to the whole system of mathematical truth. 

in two senses of the word the unbelieving Jews 
rejected the truth, during the Messiah's ministry, 
and that of his apostles. 

I. They rejected the truth by which Jesus was 
proclaimed as the Son of God, the promised Mes- 
siah, and Saviour of the world. 

II. They rejected the truth by which he declared 
the righteousness required by God for the remission 
of sins. 

The truth in the first sense was proclaimed by an 
audible voice from heaven at his baptism, and also 
at his transfiguration, and by the innumerable mira- 
cles which he wrought in his Father's name. The 
truth in the second sense, was declared by his 
preaching and his example. 

They rejected him as the Messiah, because they 
had expected a temporal Prince to deliver them from 
their subjection to the Romans, and not a spiritual 
Prince to deliver them from their thraldom of sin. 
Had Jesus appeared in the character which their 
prepossessions had given to the Messiah, but few mir- 
acles would have been necessary to induce them to 
flock to his standard by thousands. But when in- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 21 

stead of a splendid military chieftain, to call them to 
arms and war, they perceived a spiritual Teacher, 
calling them to repentance, peace, and a life of self- 
denial, they despised and rejected him, notwithstand- 
ing his thousands of beneficent miracles. 

As they rejected him in the character of the Mes- 
siah, so they rejected the heavenly messages of 
truth and peace proclaimed by his ministry. Had 
they been of a candid and obedient heart, they would 
soon have perceived that he came not in his own 
name, but in the name of the Father that sent him. 
But being of a perverse and disobedient temper, they 
rejected the light and truth of his precepts, and 
hated him because he testified of them, that their 
deeds were evil. Hence the following passages in 
his preaching : — 

" He that believeth on him, is not condemned 5 
but he that believeth not, is condemned already, be- 
cause he hath not believed in the name of the only 
begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation 
that light has come into the world, and men loved 
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were 
evil. For every one that doeth evil, hateth the light, 
neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be 
reproved. But he that doeth truth, cometh to the 
light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they 
are wrought in God." John iii. 18 — 21. "My 
doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any 
man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine 
whether it be of God, or whether 1 speak of myself." 
John vii. 16, 17. " If God were your Father, ye 



22 LETTERS 

would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from, 
God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 
Why do ye not understand my speech ? even be- 
cause ye cannot hear my words/ ' John viii. 4, 2. 
The last clause is translated by Dr. Campbell — " It 
is because ye cannot bear my doctrine. u 

It may be true that the ambiguity of some of the 
predictions respecting the Messiah, led the Jews to 
expect a temporal Prince, but the obstinacy with 
which they adhered to that opinion in opposition to 
all the light resulting from his miracles and his min- 
istry, may justly be imputed to the wickedness of 
their hearts. Nor can it be doubted that other faith- 
ful teachers, and their preaching, have been rejected 
in a similar manner. Still it may not be true, that all 
error of opinion concerning religious truth results 
from depravity of heart. 



LETTER IV. 

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION ANSWERED. 

My Christian Brethren, 

It being granted that our Lord imputed the 
error of the unbelieving Jews respecting himself, to 
a disobedient heart, why may not ministers of 



TO CHRISTIANS. 23 

the Gospel of the present age, impute all supposed 
errors on important doctrines to the same source ? 

This is a question which should interest all inquir- 
ers after truth — all who wish the peace and prosper- 
ity of Zion. I shall endeavor to give such answers 
as will commend themselves to every impartial mind. 

1. God gave to his Son the Holy Spirit not by 
measure — by which he could infallibly distinguish 
between truth and error ; and by which he so knew 
what was in man, that he could tell the motives 
by which they were governed, and the reasons which 
operated in the adoption of their opinions. This 
cannot be said of the ministers of the Gospel at the 
present day. 

2. Jesus Christ was ordained of God to be the 
JuaVe of the living as well as of the dead. It is not 
so with the ordinary ministers of the Gospel. 

3. Ministers of the Gospel are not only liable 
themselves to error ; but they are greatly divided in 
their opinions. If any one of them has a right to 
impute the errors of his brethren to moral depravity, 
why is not this right common to all ? If not com- 
mon to all, who but an inspired teacher shall be able 
to say to whom the right belongs, and to whom it 
does not 1 If all have the right, it is then certain 
that some must have a right to judge unjustly and 
injuriously. Because where there is opposition of 
opinions there must be error on one side or the other, 
if not on both. 

4. Ministers of the Gospel, as well as other men 
are very liable to be under the influence of party 



24 LETTERS 

passions, and to be governed by such influence in 
estimating both the opinions and the characters of 
those who dissent from them. The annals of past 
ages furnish melancholy proof of this fact — such evi- 
dence as might well make any considerate man 
tremble at the thought of assuming such a power or 
right. 

Besides, in civil cases, an interested person is 
deemed unqualified to act as a judge or a juror. So 
also is the man who is known to be prejudiced against 
a person or party whose cause is to be decided. 
How imminent then must be the danger, when after 
long controversy and excitement, a minister of one 
sect ventures to assume the office of a judge in re- 
spect to the hearts of those who dissent from his 
creed ! Under such circumstances, what reflecting 
man would dare, unauthorized, to assume such re- 
sponsibility ? How little confidence is to be placed 
in the censorious opinions mutually expressed of 
each other by political partizans, in a time of great 
excitement ? Quite as little, I suspect, is to be pla- 
ced in the opinions of religious partizans under 
similar circumstances. 

5. There are many causes of error, and many 
ways to account for it, besides the wickedness of the 
human heart ; and it is a law of love, and the nature 
of true love, to put the most favorable construction 
upon a brother's conduct which the circumstances 
of the case will admit. Every man duly aware of 
his own liability to err, must feel it to be desirable 
that others should act on this principle towards 



TO CHRISTIANS. 25 

himself. The ambiguity of language is a source of 
error, by which every man is liable to be led astray, 
whether he be learned or illiterate, good or bad. 
Many ambiguous words and phrases are used in the 
Bible, and in some instances it must be doubtful per- 
haps to every one in which of two or more senses 
these words or phrases are used in particular passa- 
ges. The man who is not aware of his own liability 
to mistake the intended meaning of an ambiguous 
word or phrase, and thus to form an erroneous opin- 
ion, is as little to be envied for his intelligence as 
for his candor. 

That good men are liable to mistake when ambig- 
uous words are used by inspired teachers, may be 
evident from what occurred during our Lord's min- 
istry. Several instances are recorded of the mistakes 
of his apostles, which arose from this source. When 
he exhorted them to beware of the " leaven of the 
Pharisees ;" they supposed it to be the " leaven of 
bread" that he meant, till by reasoning with them 
Christ led them to understand that it was the doc- 
trine of the Pharisees which he had called " leaven." 
Thousands of similar mistakes result from such a 
figurative use of common words. The apostles 
again mistook the meaning of Christ, when he said 
to them " our friend Lazarus sleepeth." The eve- 
ning before the crucifixion, Christ said to Judas, 
iC What thou doest, do quickly." Now no man at 
the table knew for what purpose Jesus thus address- 
ed the traitor ; but as it was known to them that 
Judas kept the purse of the company, some supposed 



26 LETTERS 

that Jesus had directed him to purchase the things 
that would be needed at the feast, or to give some- 
thing to the poor. After the resurrection, the apos- 
tles again misapprehended the meaning of their Lord 
in the answer he gave to Peter's question relating to 
John, Jesus replied to Peter, by another question — 
" If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 
thee ? From this ambiguous answer, the opinion was 
formed and circulated that John should not die. 

Now what should we have thought of our Lord's 
character, had he imputed such mistakes as have 
been mentioned, to wickedness of heart in his disci- 
ples? Yet this would have been as proper as it is 
for Christians at this day, thus to account for their 
differences of opinion. For a great part of these dif- 
ferences result from the ambiguity of Scripture lan- 
guage. 

6. Children of different sects are differently taught 
as to the meaning of particular words and phrases, 
as they occur in the Scriptures; and many of them 
are perhaps to the end of their lives incapable of 
correcting the errors thus imbibed in childhood. 
Though in discoursing with the Jews, Christ impu- 
ted their rejection of his testimony to a disobedient 
heart ; yet it is not to be supposed that what he said to 
them, was applicable to all the Jews of that age who 
did not become believers in him — nor to any who 
had not an opportunity to be correctly informed of 
the evidences of his divine mission. Many of the 
people of Judea, as well as Jews in foreign lands, 
had probably no knowledge of Jesus, of his preach- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 27 

ing, or his miracles, but what they received from his 
enemies. In regard to persons thus situated, it can 
hardly be said that light had come into the world ; 
and it cannot be supposed that they were held ac- 
countable for privileges bestowed on others, which 
were denied to them by the course of divine provi- 
dence. When children are brought up under the 
influence of pious parents, who happen to entertain 
erroneous doctrines, they are under a kind of neces- 
sity of imbibing erroneous opinions. For a child to 
be thus situated may be a calamity, but not a crime ; 
and it is rather an evidence of an obedient than a 
disobedient heart, that he imbibes the erroneous 
opinions of his parents. For he is required to honor 
father and mother, and a disposition to obey this com- 
mand, will naturally incline him to listen to parental 
instruction and to receive as truth what his parents 
inculcate as the doctrines of the Gospel. It is as 
unreasonable as it is cruel for a Protestant to impute it 
to wickedness of heart that the children of Papists 
grow up strongly attached to the doctrines of the 
Catholic church. We may as rationally blame a 
child for not having been born omniscient, or for 
possessing the spirit of filial love and reverence, as 
to blame him for receiving as truth the erroneous 
opinions which were inculcated on him by his pa- 
rents, while it was impossible for him to know that 
they were incorrect. Let any censorious minister 
ask himself, what would be his views of others, who 
should impute it to wickedness of heart, that his 
children hearken to his instructions, and grow up in 



28 LETTERS 

the belief of his religious opinions ? To whatever 
denomination a child may belong, the more pious 
and humble he is, the more likely he is to imbibe 
the religious opinions of his parents, whether they 
be correct or erroneous. 

7. The doctrines about which Christians have con- 
tended, have seldom been strictly the doctrines of 
the Gospel ; they have more commonly been the 
doctrines of men — of men who assumed the right to 
say in other words what was meant by the inspired 
writers, and to set up their explanations of Scrip- 
ture as unquestionable truth. In some instances, 
indeed there have been disputes about the genuine- 
ness of certain passages, which have found a place 
in the Bible. In other instances there have been 
disputes in regard to the correctness of the com- 
monly received translations. But I have not learned 
that any sect of Christians has been formed on either 
of these grounds of dispute. The disputes which 
have divided Christians into sects, have originated 
in differences of opinion about the meaning of par- 
ticular passages of Scripture, which were acknowl- 
edged to be genuine by each party, — and to be true 
in the sense intended by the inspired writers. To 
express the supposed sense of the passages more 
definitely, has been an object with those who have 
formed creeds or confessions of faith. Propositions 
which men have thus formed have been set up as 
standards of faith, and as tests of Christian charac- 
ter ; and to these others must give their assent, or be 
denied Christian privileges. These propositions of 



TO CHRISTIANS. 29 

human manufacture are what their advocates de- 
nominate the truth as it is in Jesus. Those who 
refuse their assent to these dogmas are reproached 
as enemies to the truth, while they freely admit as 
the truth the very texts of Scripture, on which 
these articles are supposed to be founded. It seems 
to have been thought not sufficient for a man to be- 
lieve the doctrines of the Gospel as given by the 
wisdom of God, but he must assent to an edition of 
these doctrines as revised and amended, by the wis- 
dom of self-sufficient men. The " bones of con- 
tention" have not been the words of God's wisdom, 
but the words of man's wisdom : and these words 
of man's wisdom have been preferred to the words 
of God, as standards of truth and tests of character. 
1 think I do not go too far in saying that these hu- 
man compositions have been preferred to the Bible,, 
for the purposes I have mentioned. If they are not 
preferred, why are they urged, and substituted, as 
if the Bible were insufficient ? I am aware that 
those who adopt this course profess great respect for 
the Bible, and are not commonly backward to accuse 
dissenters from their creed with disrespect for the 
oracles of God. But it seems to me an extraordinary 
mode of evincing a regard for the Bible, to substi- 
tute for it, as a rule of faith, the compositions of 
fallible and uninspired men. 

If one sect of Christians may adopt this course, so 
may another ; and thus it has been that different sects 
have adopted the same self-sufficient principle, and 
mutually censured, reproached and persecuted one an- 



30 LETTERS 

other. Then a third sect is formed, which condemns 
•each of the preceding ; then a fourth, and a fifth, and 
so on till the family of professed disciples of Christ 
have become divided and subdivided into numerous 
parties or hostile bands, as unlike a " building fitly 
framed together," as are the fragments of a temple 
after having been rent asunder and dispersed by the 
violence of a hurricane, — and almost as far from 
that oneness which Christ prayed might exist among 
all who should become believers in him, as are the 
different parties of the belligerent troops of a nation 
in a time of civil war. What can be more adapted to 
promote infidelity than such perpetual hostilities 
among those who profess to be disciples of the 
Prince of peace, and to love one another as Chiist 
has loved them ! 

What is the difference between denying the Gos- 
pel to be a sufficient revelation, and establishing the 
creed of a particular sect as a standard of faith and 
a test of character? If the Gospel is not so clear 
and definite as to supersede the necessity of human 
creeds as standards of faith, why should it be called 
a revelation from God ? Suppose I should form a 
confession of faith, expressive of my own views of 
the meaning of Scripture. This might be useful 
for giving information of what I think to be true in 
regard to the doctrines of the Gospel. If I stop 
here, I give no just cause of offence. But if I pro- 
ceed further and make my opinions a test of charac- 
ter, and impute it to moral depravity that others 
dissent from my creed, what do I less than to 



TO CHRISTIANS. 31 

act the part of the " Man of sin," assuming to be 
" as God" or " above all that is called God"— inva- 
ding the rights of my fellow men, and arrogating 
the prerogative of God in judging the hearts of my 
brethren ? There is, I suspect, much more of the 
" Man of sin," in this business of creedmaking 
and censuring such as dissent, than has generally 
been imagined. If it be said that by the " Man of 
sin" the Pope was intended ; I would ask, who and 
what is a Pope but a man who assumes the right of 
determining how his brethren should understand the 
doctrines of the Gospel, and the right of censuring 
and persecuting such men as dare to question his in- 
fallibility ? The PontifTof Rome is not the only man 
who presumes thus to invade the rights of men and 
the rights of God. 

Party creeds, in the language of human wisdom, 
have unquestionably been adopted in the belief, 
that the doctrines of the Gospel can be better ex- 
pressed than they were by Christ and his apostles — 
at least, expressed in language less ambiguous, and 
more sure to keep heretical persons from joining a 
church. It has been pleaded that creeds or articles 
of faith, expressed in Scripture language, would 
afford no security against the admission of persons 
of very different opinions, as all who profess to re- 
gard the Bible as their rule of faith will readily 
assent to articles thus expressed. Hence it has been 
deemed proper to express articles of faith in language 
more definite than the language of the Scriptures, 
that there may be more uniformity of opinion among 



32 LETTERS 

the members of the same church, and that men of 
erroneous opinions may be excluded. 

But do such articles of faith insure uniformity of 
opinion ? Look at the Church of England, whose 
clergy subscribe " The Thirty Nine Articles." 
The majority of them are supposed to be Arminians, 
and being the majority, they are called " the Ortho- 
dox" Another large and respectable class of these 
clergymen are Calvinists. Some are supposed to 
be Antinomians. They all subscribe a creed which 
is in the strongest language Trinitarian ; yet how 
many of the clergy of that church have been Unita- 
rians, except in name ! And how many of the ex- 
planations of the doctrine of " three persons in one 
God," given by the ministers of that church, have 
amounted to nothing more than Unitarianism under 
a Trinitarian cloak or veil ! What better than this 
have we when we are told, that by the three persons 
in one God are meant three attributes, or three offices, 
or three relations, or three unknown distinctions ? 
Is it not a fact, too, that many of the clergy of the 
Church of England subscribe the Thirty Nine Arti- 
cles, not in reality as articles of their belief, but as 
" Articles of peace V 9 

In that Church we have an example illustrative of 
the benefits or the disadvantages which result from 
the establishment of Articles of faith in the words 
of man's wisdom. In our own country, too, some- 
thing of the same diversity of opinion is known to 
exist among ministers who profess an assent to pop- 
ular articles of faith, which are called essential doc- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 33 

trines ; and the same articles are also in our country 
differently explained by different writers. What 
worse than this might be expected to result should 
all their articles of faith be stated in the very words 
of Christ and his Apostles 1 And would there be 
no advantage in having the articles so expressed as 
to preclude the strong temptations to hypocrisy 
and dissimulation ? 



LETTERV. 



TWO EXAMPLES OF ERROR FROM THE AMBIGUITY OF 
LANGUAGE. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Having mentioned the ambiguity of language 
as a prolific source of error and diversity of opinion 
among Christians, I shall now present two examples. 
When our Lord instituted the supper as a memo- 
rial of his death, on giving the bread to his disciples 
he said, " Take, eat, this is my body ;-" and on 
giving the cup he said, " This is my blood. " On 
such ground as this the Catholic clergy formed the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. In other words 
they formed propositions to be received as articles 
of faith which affirmed that the bread and the wiue, 



34 LETTERS 

as used in the Lord's Supper, are changed into the 
body and blood of Christ, — so that those who par- 
take of the supper, eat the flesh and drink the blood 
of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine has been deemed 
by the Catholics not only as true, but so essential 
that those who deny it are deemed guilty of damnable 
error or heresy, and on this ground thousands of 
Protestants have been subjected to imprisonment 
torture and death, as heretics. 

Protestants as well as Papists admit that Christ 
uttered the words which have been quoted ; and they 
believe them to be both true and important in the 
sense they were used by our Lord. There has been 
a difference of opinion between Lutherans and other 
Protestants as to the import of the words, as used by 
Christ. The most common opinion among Protes- 
tants of the present day is probably this, that the 
words are to be understood in a figurative sense, 
meaning that the bread and the wine in the Lord's 
Supper, are to be regarded as symbols of the body 
and blood of Christ. 

Another example may be the following : 
In foretelling his death, Jesus said — " I lay down, 
my life for the sheep." His Apostles represent that 
" while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" — 
that " he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust" — 
that "he died for all," and " tasted death for every 
man." A large portion of the Christian world have 
understood these and similar passages as importing 
that Christ suffered as a substitute for sinners — endur- 
ed for them a vicarious punishment — the wrath of God 



TO CHRISTIANS. 35 

— the full penalty of the law, or an equivalent to the 
" punishment due to us all" — at least " all the elect." 

The doctrine of vicarious punishment, like that 
of transubstantiation, has been declared to be an 
essential doctrine, and those who dissent from it 
have been denounced as heretics, enemies of Christ, 
despisers of the truth, and unworthy of the name of 
Christians. 

Yet as it was in the other case, those Christians 
who dissent from the doctrine of vicarious punish- 
ment, readily admit all that the Bible says of the 
sufferings and death of Christ; they believe that he 
laid down his life for his sheep, that he gave his life 
a ransom for sinners, and " died for all" — " the just 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." They 
believe too, that in his death, his love and the love 
of God for our sinful race, were really and wonder- 
fully displayed. And that we are reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son. All these ideas they 
believe to be as true as they would have been had 
Christ suffered a vicarious punishment — but not true 
in the sense which has been supposed by the advo- 
cates for that doctrine. 

Now let it be observed that in both examples the 
words relied on are ambiguous ; for there is more 
than one sense in which they are capable of being 
understood. As a. portrait or image is called by the 
name of the person represented, so the bread and 
wine may be called the body and blood of Christ, 
which are represented by them ; and it is well known 



36 LETTERS 

that there are several senses in which one person 
may die for another, or for many others. 

Let it also be observed that in the first example, 
Christ did not say, This bread is changed into my 
body — nor, This wine is changed into my blood 
Not a syllable was said by him about any change or 
transubstantiation. This idea was added to the 
words of Christ by the framers of the doctrine. So 
in the second example, Christ did not say I lay down 
my life as a vicarious punishment for my sheep. Nor 
did his Apostles in any instance say, that Christ 
endured for us " the wrath of God," or the penalty of 
the divine law due to our offences. This idea was 
added by the framers of the doctrine of vicarious 
punishment, just as the idea of change was added by 
the framers of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I 
have no doubt that in each case the framers thought 
the idea they added to be implied in the words of 
Scripture ; but this is no proof that it was implied, 
nor that any man had aright to insert it, as the word 
of God. It is, however, by thus adding to the words 
of Scripture what men have supposed to be implied, 
that numerous propositions have been formed as es- 
sential articles of faith. Nor has the mischief of 
this creed-making policy stopped here. Each sect, 
after having thus formed its essential articles, have 
called them the truth. Hence, with them to love 
the truth, is to love the articles of their creed, formed 
in the words of man's wisdom ; and any one who 
dissents from these articles, is supposed to be a des- 
piser of the truth, an opposer of the truth, an enemy 



TO CHRISTIANS. 37 

to the God of truth. Of course, the opposition to 
these supposed truths, is imputed to depravity of 
heart. Hence persecution in various forms, has been 
practised by one sect of Christians against another. 
What an awful responsibility does a fallible unin- 
spired man take on himself, when he ventures to 
substitute his own opinion of an ambiguous passage 
of Scripture for the word of God, and to make that 
opinion a test by which he may judge the hearts of 
others ! 

That ministers of the gospel have a right to ex- 
plain the Scriptures according to their own under- 
standing of them, and to do what they can to make 
them plain to the understandings of their hearers or 
readers, is readily admitted. But no man has a right 
to/equire others to assent to his interpretations con- 
trary to the convictions of their own consciences, 
nor to set up his own explanations as of equal author- 
ity with the word of God. As it is my duty to explain 
the Scriptures according to the impartial dictates of 
my own understanding, I ought to know that it is 
the duty of my brethren to explain according to their 
respective understandings, and not according to mine. 
If they dissent from me, I ought to consider that I 
also dissent from them ; and the same candor and 
forbearance which I may reasonably desire from them 
towards myself I should evince in my conduct to- 
wards them. 

To the honor and praise of the Four Evangelists, 
it has been said of them, that, in their history of our 
Lord, " They tell the world what he said, and what 



38 LETTERS 

he did ; but they invariably leave the judgment that 
ought to be formed of both, to the discernment of 
their readers." * Happy it would have been for the 
Christian world if all creed-makers had adopted the 
wise policy of the Evangelists, so far as to give all 
articles of faith in the language of the inspired wri- 
ters, or as nearly so as possible. Summaries of the 
Christian faith in this form might have been very 
useful, and have been the means of preserving union 
and peace among the disciples of the common Lord. 
Notes and comments too might have been safely added, 
as accompaniments of the articles, had they been prop- 
erly distinguished from the articles, and only given 
as the opinions of fallible men, with proper cautions 
to the reader to consider them in no other light — but 
to use his own understanding, and all the means he 
may possess to ascertain what is truth and what is 
error. " Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove 
thee, and thou be found a liar." Such is the wise 
counsel of Agur. Mr. Poole, in his Annotations 
on this text says— " As the word of God is pure, do 
not thou corrupt and abuse it by adding to it thy own 
or other men's inventions and opinions, and deliver- 
ing or receiving them in the name and as the words 
of God." Prov. xxx. 6. 

Now I may seriously ask, were not the doctrines of 
Transubstantiation and vicarious punishment formed 
by adding to the word of God the " inventions and 
opinions" of men? Have not these "inventions 
and opinions been delivered and received as the 
* Dr. Campbell, 



TO CHRISTIANS. 39 

words of God ?" And have they not been treated 
as such by the propagators of these doctrines, in 
their denunciations against those who dissent from 
them ? I may also ask, has it not been by thus 
adding the opinions of men to the word of God, that 
all the creed-making sects have formed their essen- 
tial articles of faith — all the articles which have 
caused alienation and strife among Christians ? If 
such a mode of forming articles of faith may not be 
called adding to God's words, I know not what de- 
serves that name. 

If articles of faith, expressed in the words of 
Scripture, were accompanied by such notes, and 
comments as I have mentioned, with proper cautions 
to the reader to distinguish between the words of 
Scripture and the opinions of the compilers, there 
would be no ground for the charge of adding to the 
words of God. But when fallible and uninspired men 
venture to assert their own opinions as the doc- 
trines of the Gospel, and make them a test of Christ- 
ian faith or a Christian character, they appear to me 
to act in direct violation of the counsel of Agur, and 
assume an authority in the church which God has 
never delegated to any of the sons of men. To make 
such articles of faith the standard by which men 
must be measured for admission into the church, or 
for exclusion from it, is, in my opinion perfectly 
unwarranted by the Scriptures, and in a high and 
reprehensible sense adding to the word of God; 

The counsel of Agur is enforced by the admonitory 
clause " lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar. u 



40 LETTERS 

" Lest he reprove thee." Lest God reprove thee 
by the course of his providence. There are various 
ways in which God may reprove the imprudences and 
the vices of mankind. A great portion of the trou- 
bles which come on imprudent or vicious men in the 
present life, may properly be regarded as reproofs or 
chastenings from the hand of God. Such evils may 
occur in the natural course of providence, and yet be 
of the nature of reproof. The alienations, conten- 
tions and innumerable difficulties which have occur- 
red among Christians, are the natural and direct 
fruit of adding to God's words, in forming articles of 
faith, and seem to me of the nature of reproof for such 
conduct, and as evidence of divine disapprobation. 

" And thou be found a liar." I do not think that 
men are generally guilty of intentional falsehood 
when they add to God's words in forming articles of 
faith ; and probably Agur meant no more by the word 
" liar," than one who ventures to assert his own 
opinions of the word of God as^of equal authority 
with the word itself. When a man has so little 
sense of his own fallibility as to do this, or is pos- 
sessed of such arrogance or self-sufficiency, as to as- 
sume such a power, he exposes himself to the charge 
of uttering that which is really false, although he 
may fancy that it is the truth. He may be free from 
the charge of intentional falsehood, while he is verily 
guilty of uttering false opinions, as the doctrines of 
the Gospel. In this respect) how often are men found 
guilty, through self-sufficiency or the want of that hu- 
mility and caution which ever become uninspired men ! 



TO CHRISTIANS. 41 

Having said so much against forming articles of 
faith in the " words of man's wisdom," I ought per- 
haps freely to confess, that there was a time when I 
could express in my own language what I thought to 
be the meaning of the Scriptures, as articles of faith 
to be adopted by a church But in several particu- 
lars my own views afterwards became so changed 
that I could not again have assented to the articles 
of my own forming. These facts with further re- 
flections and inquiries convinced me, that there is 
neither safety nor propriety in the common mode of 
forming articles of faith ; that such compositions 
operate as fetters to the mind in regard to free in- 
quiry after truth, and as obstructions to the progress 
of light; that they expose the members of a church 
to be involved in contentions, or to act the part of 
hypocrites or persecutors, — and that the adoption of 
such articles by a church, implies a presumption of 
such infallibility on the part of the framers or the re- 
ceivers, as is not warranted by either Scripture, rea- 
son, or experience, but is contradicted by them all. 



LETTER VI. 

the Messiah's censures of the scribes and 
pharisees, 

My Christian Brethren, 

Those who are in the habit of uttering censures 
against their dissenting brethren, imagine that their 



42 LETTERS 

conduct may be justified by Scripture examples. 
These I shall examine in this and subsequent letters. 

That the Messiah censured the Scribes and Phar- 
isees cannot be denied ; and his awful language re- 
specting them,as we have it recorded in the 23d chap- 
ter of Matthew, has been viewed as sufficient to war- 
rant the party censures of the present day. " Wo 
unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites," is many 
times repeated ; and to this language partizans ap- 
peal to justify their own sweeping denunciations, 
against such as dissent from their religious opinions. 
But is there not a great difference between the au- 
thority of Christ to judge the hearts of men, and 
the authority of any man of the present age? 

Besides, it seems to me that the spirit of our Lord's 
language has been grossly misapprehended. When 
a person is himself under the influence of resentful 
passions, the language " Wo unto you" will seem to 
be the proper expression of such feelings. But let 
him be under the influence of benevolent feelings, and 
the same words may appear to him with an entirely 
different aspect, and as the expression of pitying love 
or commisseration, towards persons whose characters 
expose them to the displeasure of Heaven. In the lat- 
ter sense they are viewed and explained by Dr. Camp- 
bell ; and in this sense I think they ought to be regard- 
ed. When thus viewed, they imply nothing indignant 
or resentful, any more than the prayer on the the cross 
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they 
do." When Christ's language is referred to as jus- 
tifying party denunciations, an indignant, resentful 



TO CHRISTIANS. 43 

and imprecating spirit is imputed to him, which as 
I conceive, was foreign from his heart " Alas for 
y 0U " — or " Wo is unto you," is, I believe, the cor- 
rect interpretation ; not " Wo be unto you," as has 
been often imagined. 

When our Lord predicted the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, he used the following language : " Wo unto 
the women with child, and to them that give suck 
in those days." The peculiar situation of these 
women was deprecated as what would add to their 
distress in such a time of general calamity; and no one 
can doubt, in this case, that the language of Christ was 
the language of pity, not of indignation or censure. It 
is very true that Christ imputed blame to the scribes 
and pharisees, and not to the women, whose condition 
he deplored. The blame however imputed to the 
scribes and pharisees, was not expressed in the words 
translated " Wo unto you," but by the words that fol- 
lowed, in which he described their wicked conduct. 
The Saviour possessed God-like benevolence ; while 
he abhorred sin, he loved and pitied the sinner. A 
deficiency in this respect is too often apparent in 
many who profess to be his disciples. Is it not too 
generally so with partizans of every sect? And will 
not this defect in a great measure account for the 
adoption of the persecuting principle, which imputes 
error of judgment, or supposed error of opinion, to 
wickedness of heart? How exceedingly different 
was the benevolence of the Saviour from that affec- 
tion which is confined to a party, and which under 
a pretext of love to the truth, can calumniate a dis- 
senting brother ! 



44 LETTERS 

I have admitted that Christ censured the scribes 
and pharisees ; but for what did he censure them ? 
Was it for any error at all resembling the supposed 
errors of opinion by which Christians at this day are 
divided into sects ? or for which Christians of one 
sect denounce those of another ? On the contrary, 
was it not for immorality in practice, and for such 
errors relating to the law of God, as encouraged im* 
morality? Let anyone impartially examine what 
Jesus said of these men in the chapter which has 
been mentioned, and on other occasions ; and he 
will find that so far as his censures had any refer- 
ence to error of opinion, they were such errors as 
encouraged immorality and crime. By their ex- 
positions of the law and their regard to traditions, 
the scribes and pharisees made " the word of God of 
no effect," and made their religion a cloak for their 
covetousness. They " devoured widow's houses/' 
while " for a pretence they made long prayers" — 
they " paid tithes of mint, annise, and cummin," 
while they " passed over the weightier matters of 
the law, judgment, mercy and faith," or " justice, 
humanity and fidelity. "* They made " clean the 
outside of the cup and the platter," while " within 
they w r ere full of extortion and excess." They pro- 
fessed a great regard for the Sabbath, while they 
could spend it in calumniating the Saviour for his 
beneficent miracles on that day. Yes, and while 
such was their own inconsistency, they could " trust 
in themselves that they were righteous and despise 
others" — even the Messiah himself. 
* Campbell's translation. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 45 

Such were the grounds on which the Saviour cen- 
sured the scribes and pharisees. How very dissim- 
ilar are these from such supposed errors of opinion 
as are at this day made the grounds of reproach by 
the partizans of different sects ! When men of li- 
centious habits give such expositions of divine pre- 
cepts, as are adapted to countenance their immoral 
conduct, we have then reason to fear that their 
errors of opinion proceed from depravity of heart. 
Such appears to have been the fact with the scribes 
and pharisees. This was known to our Lord ; for 
he knew what was in man. But no one of these 
facts afford any proof that the differences of opinion 
among Christians, which do not relate to moral pre- 
cepts, are the fruit of depravity, on which side soever 
the error may be found. Much less, if possible, do 
such facts prove that the errors are on the part of the 
accused, and not on the part of accusers ; nor that 
the censures may on either part be justified. How 
does it appear that the accused sects are more liable 
or more likely to be in error than their accusers ? 
I know not : and I suspect that there are few per- 
sons who will be able to answer the question in a 
manner satisfactory even to themselves. 

It is worthy of serious inquiry whether the opin- 
ion which leads partizans to think they may be jus- 
tified in reproaching others for supposed misinter- 
pretations of Scripture, is not in fact an error of the 
same nature of those for which Christ reproved the 
scribes and pharisees — an error that makes u the 
word of God of no effect/ 5 which forbids censorious 



46 LETTERS 

judging, and speaking evil one of another. If any- 
thing is immoral, it is immorality to violate these 
precepts. 



LETTER VII. 

Paul's censures of schismatic teachers. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Perhaps there is not another passage in the 
Bible which has been more frequently perverted than 
the following : — " I marvel that ye are so soon re- 
moved from him that called you into the grace of 
Christ, unto another Gospel, which is not another ; 
but there be some that trouble you, and would 
pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we or an 
angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto 
you, than that which we preached unto you, let him 
be accursed." Gal. i. 6, 7, 8, 

This language of Paul to the Galatians is one of 
the strong holds to which censorious Christians of all 
sects resort in justification of schismatic conduct, or 
such reproachful language as tends to alienate 
Christians from each other. By this example of 
Paul, the Catholics justify their anathemas against 
Protestants ; and Protestants of different sects on 



TO CHRISTIANS. 47 

the same ground justify their censures of the Catho- 
lics and of one another. But to the Pope himself, 
and to every minister of the Gospel, who like the 
Pope denounces fellow Christians on account of dif- 
ference of opinion, these questions may be urged, — 
Art thou like Paul, invested with apostolic authority 
and miraculous powers ? Hast thou like him, been 
inspired to teach the doctrines of Christ, and to 
distinguish between truth and error ? And what 
analogy is there between the doctrine which Paul 
censured, and any doctrine which in modern times 
has divided Christians of our land ; or on account 
cf which they have censured one another ? 

From the contents of the epistle to the Galatians, 
it appears, that soon after tlrey had received the 
Gospel, and had been formed into a church state, 
certain teachers came among them who were zeal- 
ous for the Mosaic rituals, and who ventured to 
teach these Christians that circumcision was neces- 
sary to salvation. The same doctrine had been 
taught at Antioch, and had occasioned the council 
which was held at Jerusalem ; the records of whose 
proceedings we have in the fifteenth chapter of the 
Acts of the Apostles. This council decided that 
circumcision was not to be required of the Gen- 
tile converts. But this result seems not to have 
been satisfactory to all the Jews who believed in 
Jesus as the Messiah. Some of them were disposed 
to make circumcision an essential article of the 
Christian religion, and thus taught the gentile con- 
verts, " except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be 



48 LETTERS 

saved ! Had these teachers merely practised cir- 
cumcision to satisfy their own consciences, Paul 
would probably have made no objection. For he 
was himself so liberal on this point that he readily 
consented to the circumcision of Timothy, whose 
father was a Greek, when he found this to be neces- 
sary to satisfy the consciences of others — or necessa- 
ry to the usefulness of his son in the faith.* But 
the teachers whose conduct was censured by Paul, 
undertook to introduce an article as essential to the 
salvation of others, which the Messiah had not en- 
joined ; and on this ground they were disposed to 
make a division in the church, by excluding those who 
dissented from their creed, and also reviled the apos- 
tle himself. It was for this schismatic conduct that 
they were censured. In Paul's view they preached 
another Gospel, or a pretended Gospel, contrary to 
the one he had taught, and which the Galatians had 
received — and contrary, too, to the great doctrine of 
union and peace. From Paul's writings, it is very 
clear that his prayer was the same as that of Christ, 
that believers might be one, and be preserved from 
division. Of no other persons did he speak with 
such severity as of schismatic teachers. The lan- 
guage quoted at the head of this letter, is awfully 
severe ; and in another part of the same epistle, he 
said to the Galatians, i( I would that they were even 
cut off who trouble you." 

Paul also exhorted the Christians at Rome, in the 
following manner : — " Mark them who cause divis- 
* Acts xvi, 1. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 49 

ions and offences, contrary to the doctrine ye have 
received, and avoid them." To Titus he thus wrote : 
11 A man that is an heretic, after the first and second 
admonition, reject." Titus iii. 10. In Dr. Camp- 
bell's opinion, instead of M a man that is an heretic" 
the Greek words should have been translated, " a 
factious man" — meaning one who was disposed to 
promote contentions and divisions in the church. 
It was against such men that Paul's thunders were 
uttered — against men who dared to make doctrines 
essential to salvation which had not been authorized 
as such by the Head of the church. I may here 
quote the last paragraph of Dr. Campbell's Disserta- 
tion on Heresy, as both pertinent and important : — 

11 1 shall conclude with adding to the observations 
on schism and heresy, that how much soever of a 
schismatic or heretical spirit in the apostolic sense 
of the terms, may have contributed to the formation 
of the different sects into which the Christian world 
is at present divided, no person, who in the spirit of 
candor and charity adheres to that which to the best 
of his judgment is right, though in his opinion he 
should be mistaken, is in the Scripture sense either 
schismatic or heretic. And that he on the contrary, 
whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these 
odious appellations, who is the most apt to throw the 
imputation on others. Both terms, for they only 
denote different degrees of the same bad quality, al- 
ways indicate a disposition and practice unfriendly 
to peace, harmony, and love." 

In the same Dissertation, having shown how things 



50 LETTERS 

had been managed to make the term " heresy" ap- 
plicable to error of judgment, Dr. Campbell remark- 
ed. — " Thus mere mistake is made at length to in- 
cur the reproach originally levelled against an as- 
suming and factious temper, which would sacrifice 
the dearest interests of society to its own ambition." 
Two striking facts relating to the teachers who 
were censured by Paul, should not be overlooked 
iior forgotten. 

I. These teachers were men who dared to teach 
a doctrine as essential to salvation, and as a test of 
Christian character, which no inspired teacher had 
<ever exhibited in that light. 

II. These teachers were, I think, of the first class 
of professed Christian teachers, who ventured to set 
up their own interpretations of Scripture as articles 
of faith essential to salvation, and as a test of Christ- 
ian character. 

It is very certain that Paul's censures were level- 
led against men who assumed this schismatic and 
creed-making power. Is it not then remarkable 
that, in modern times, those who have imitated the 
schismatic teachers, have also justified their own 
denouncing spirit by Paul's censure of the very 
principle and practice which they have adopted? 
Such inconsistency is not confined to any one sect : 
it has been common to individuals of various da* 
nominations. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 51 



LETTER VIII. 

Paul's account of the natural man. 

My Christian Brethren, 

The following is the language of the Apostle 
Paul :— 

" For the natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him ; 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritu- 
ally discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. 

Dr. Macknight translates the verse as follows : — 

" Now an animal man receiveth not the things of 
the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritu- 
ally examined." 

This text is often quoted to account for the differ- 
ence of opinion, which occurs between persons of 
different sects, by imputing the opinion of one of the 
parties to moral depravity, or an unconverted state. 
I shall therefore exhibit what I believe to be the 
meaning of the text, and then inquire respecting the 
propriety of the common mode of applying it. " The 
natural man," or " animal man," I suppose to be 
one who is governed by animal or fleshly appetites, 
lusts or passions, and who seeks the gratification of 
these as his highest good, and in this way becomes 
blind to the value and importance of spiritual things. 

By " the things of the Spirit of God," I understand 
the doctrines and precepts of God, revealed by the 



52 LETTERS 

Holy Spirit. These things are not received by the 
natural man. His heart is so set on other objects, 
the gratification of his animal desires, that he has no 
cordial relish for divine truths. His understanding 
and conscience may acknowledge their importance, 
but his heart says — " Go away for this time, and 
when I have a more convenient season, I will" attend 
to them. On such ground the things of the spirit 
are regarded as foolishness, or of little value com- 
pared with sensual gratifications. 

" Neither can he know them." It cannot, I 
think, have been the intention of the Apostle to re- 
present the natural man as an excusable idiot, desti- 
tute alike of a good heart, of reason, understanding 
and common sense, and thus incapable of knowing his 
duty, or the meaning of words. In such a case he 
could not be regarded as an accountable or moral be- 
ing. To " know" often means the same as to approve, 
acknowledge or enjoy, and has respect to the heart, 
rather than to the understanding. In such a sense 
of the word it is very obvious that a man governed 
by fleshly lusts, cannot know, approve, or enjoy the 
things of the Spirit of God, while in such a state. 
The reason assigned by the Apostle is, " because 
they are spiritually discerned" or " examined." Dr. 
Macknight paraphrases the words as follows — " Nei- 
ther can he know them because they are spiritually 
examined — examined by the light which revelation, 
not reason, affords." This may possibly be the 
meaning , but to me it appears quite as probable that 
by the last clause Paul meant to teach that cordially 



TO CHRISTIANS. 53 

to know, approve, or enjoy the precepts and truths 
of religion, we must have a spiritual taste or relish 
adapted to spiritual objects — in other words a dispo- 
sition to love what is true and excellent. A worldly 
minded man may understand the precept, cl set not 
your affections on things below." A revengeful man 
may understand the exhortation — " avenge not your- 
selves." The reviler may understand the precept, 
94 Speak not evil one of another." In each case, while 
the mind understands, the heart may be opposed to 
obedience, so that in the apostles sense of the words, 
he cannot " know" the things required or forbidden. 
He has no relish for such instructions. He cannot 
say, " How sweet are thy words to my taste !" 

Besides, a perverse taste or a disposition to indulge 
the fleshly lusts may be so strong — and probably of- 
ten is so strong, as to prevent that attention to the 
precepts and truths of the gospel, which is really 
necessary to a correct discerning of their true im- 
port. The influence of party prejudices and pas- 
sions, may often so bewilder the understanding as to 
occasion a false meaning of a divine precept to be 
preferred to the true meaning. Dr. Campbell, 
if I rightly remember, has given a striking in- 
stance of this, in an address to the people of Scot- 
land. He informs us that when it was the fashion 
to murder men for their supposed heretical opinions, 
the command of Christ, " Love your enemies," was 
said by the clergy not to mean, " enemies to our 
faith," but " personal enemies." Hence they infer- 
red that destroying dissenters for their opinions 

D 



54 LETTERS 

was not forbidden by this divine precept. In this 
place I may ask, does it not appear from the conduct 
of many, that the commands, " Judge not that ye 
be not judged, " and u Speak not evil one of another/' 
are so interpreted as not to forbid the most censorious 
judging and reviling of those who dissent from their 
opinions ? 

I may now inquire respecting the propriety of quo- 
ting Paul's language respecting the natural man, to 
account for the differences of opinion between per- 
sons of different sects. I may remark, 

1. That the greater part of the disputes among 
Christians result from the ambiguity of words and 
phrases, while each admits the text to be true in the 
sense which he supposes was intended by the inspired 
writer. 

2. If the words of Paul may properly be applied 
by either party, the ground is common, and the other 
party may retort the insinuation. 

A case may now be stated to test the principle, 
or the propriety of such a proceeding. 

Two persons are disputing on the words of Christ, 
" I lay down my life for the sheep." One supposes 
the words to mean that he would suffer a vicarious 
punishment for mankind. The other believes that 
he died for us, but not in that sense of the words, yet 
in a sense which he thinks far more to the honor of 
God. These men happen to be of different charac- 
ters, as well as of different opinions. One of them 
is meek and humble; the other self-sufficient — he 
trusts in himself that he is righteous and despises 



TO CHRISTIANS. 5-J 

others. Now which of these men will be the more 
likely to account for the difference of opinion by in- 
sinuating that the other is a natural man ? In this 
case no candid and intelligent person can hesitate for 
a moment. On which side soever the self-sufficient 
person may be, as to the meaning of the text, he will 
be the one to reproach his brother as a " natural 
man. 55 Candor, however, requires me to admit, that 
there may have been instances in which good men in 
other respects have been so bewildered by custom, 
theory, or party feelings, as to adopt such an unchris- 
tian mode of proceeding. But I believe it to be a 
truth, that such a course is much more frequently 
resorted to by self-righteous hypocrites, than by men 
of truly Christian feelings ; and that it behooves those 
who are in the habit of thus accounting for a dissent 
from their opinions, seriously to inquire how their 
conduct can be reconciled with gospel love and hu- 
mility, and whether they are not in fact, in that de- 
plorable state which they are so forward to impute to 
others. 

Should any still imagine that it was the intention 
of Paul to represent every unconverted man as nat- 
urally incapable of knowing the true meaning of 
gospel precepts and doctrines, and that this is the 
reason why he misinterprets them ; I may ask, on 
what ground can he be justly condemned for not receiv- 
ing and obeying the truth 1 What better excuse can 
any man possess, for not doing the will of God than 
this, that he is naturally incapable of understanding 
the meaning of divine precepts and prohibitions 1 



56 LETTERS 

If there be any blame in such a case, on whom does 
it fall 1 on the creature, or his Creator ? 

Besides, if the natural man has no perception of 
the truth, how can he be said to hate the truth 1 Can 
he hate that which he does not perceive 1 Should it 
be said that it is not the true meaning of Scripture 
that he hates, but a false meaning which he gives to 
the words ; what is this but saying in other words 
that it is falsehood, and not truth, that the sinner 
hates ? 

Where there is no law there is no transgression, 
and surely there is no law to him who has not natural 
understanding to perceive what a law forbids or re- 
quires. The following are divine precepts — " Thou 
shalt not kill ; Thou shalt not commit adultery ; Thou 
shalt not steal." These are among " the things of 
the spirit of God." But if the natural man perceives 
not their meaning, why should he be punished for 
apparent transgression ? 

Some perhaps will plead that the words of Paul 
do not extend to such plain precepts and prohibitions, 
but are to be limited to the doctrines of the gospel. 
But how is this known ? The precepts and prohibi- 
tions of God are surely the best tests of the moral 
character, and they are as properly " the things of the 
spirit, 5 ' as the doctrines revealed. Besides, no man 
is blameable for not believing a doctrine which he 
does not and cannot understand, any more than for 
not obeying a precept which he never saw nor heard. 

If the "things of the spirit of God," do not in- 
clude all that is revealed by the spirit, who shall draw 



TO CHRISTIANS. 57 

the line or set the limits between the things meant, 
and the things not meant? I may further observe, 
that the most important doctrines of the gospel are as 
plain and easy to be understood as the precepts and 
prohibitions. " Unto us there is but one God, the 
Father," is as plain as the first and great command- 
ment : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," &c. 
" Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," 
is as plain as the precept, " All things whatsoever 
ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even 
the same to them." Now what is there in either of 
these doctrines or precepts which is not intelligible 
to an unconverted man, and as intelligible to him as 
to the converted, so far as mere intellect is concerned 
in understanding them? And are not these doc- 
trines and precepts in fact understood by thousands 
of wicked men, as they are understood by good men ? 
The feelings and relish of the heart may be very dif- 
ferent in the two classes of people. To the one the 
doctrines and precepts may be sources of delight, 
while the other regards them with indifference, and 
treats them with disrespect. If I understand the 
Scriptures, the defect of the sinner consists not in 
the want of natural understanding to " know his 
master's will," but in the want of an obedient tem- 
per of heart. 

It will perhaps be pleaded by some that Scripture 
propositions have an internal sense, different from the 
natural meaning of the words, and that this is what 
the natural man cannot discern. There are undoubt- 
edly many passages of Scripture which have amean» 



58 LETTERS 

ing different from the common acceptation of the 
words. Our Lord once said, " Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews who 
heard him supposed him to mean their splendid house 
for worship, which they said had been forty-six years 
in building. " Howbeit," says the Evangelist, " he 
spake of the temple of his body." Now what is 
there in this internal sense, when thus explained, 
that is not easy to be understood by any unconverted 
man of common sense ? All the parables of Christ 
have a meaning distinct from the literal sense of the 
words. This may be called the internal sense, but 
when this sense is explained, it may be as intelligi- 
ble to a wicked man as to a good man. In explain- 
ing the parable of the sower, Christ said, " The 
seed is the word." Now this is just as plain to an 
unconverted man as if he had said, " The seed is 
wheat." When Jesus uttered the parable of the 
vineyard, " the chief priests and the scribes the same 
hour sought to lay hands on him." Why so ? Not 
because they could not understand the meaning, but 
because " they perceived that he had spoken the 
parable against them." Now this parable was one of 
" the things of the spirit of God," and yet these 
wicked Jews " perceived" the meaning, without 
waiting for an explanation. Those who w r ere " cut 
to the heart" by the dying speech of Stephen, seem 
clearly to have understood what he spoke against 
them, though they were so wicked that they stoned 
him to death for his faithful reproofs and admoni- 
tions. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 59 

As further proof that Paul's meaning lias been 
misapprehended, I may remark, that in the days of 
Ezekiel, God appealed to the reason and conscience 
of a wicked people to decide on the equity of his 
conduct towards them. " Are not my ways equal ? 
Are not your ways unequal V' But if the sinner is 
so deficient in intellect, that he cannot understand 
the meaning of God's words, of what use could be 
such an appeal ? 

I may also remark, that the duty of every man is 
limited by the extent of his understanding. To love 
the Lord with all the understanding, is all that is re- 
quired of any man, whether that understanding be 
great or small. Of course, if the natural man is 
so deficient in intellect that he cannot understand 
any of God's precepts, he is under no obligation to 
obey them. 

In both the Old Testament and the New, the con- 
version of sinners is represented as the effect of 
divine truth on their minds. " The law of the Lord 
is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the 
Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Psalm xix. 7. 
"Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of 
incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and 
abideth forever." I Pet. i. 23. Now if the uncon- 
verted, as such, are incapable of perceiving the true 
meaning of Scripture language, and consequently 
misunderstand it ; then it must be by a false mean- 
ing of the word that they are converted. Of course, 
their conversion must be the effect of falsehood, and 
not of truth. For they are in an unconverted state 



60 LETTERS 

till the change occurs ; and it is by such views of the 
word as they have in an unconverted state that they 
are regenerated, or that the work of regeneration is 
commenced. 

If men come into the world with a nature which 
renders them incapable of understanding the mean- 
ing of divine precepts, they are no more blameable 
for not perceiving their meaning, than is the man who 
was born blind, for not being able to distinguish the 
colors of the rainbow. Besides, when the precepts 
of a parent are conformable to truth, or to the pre- 
cepts of God, an unconverted or disobedient child is 
just as liable to misconceive the meaning of a parental 
precept, as a precept of the gospel. If the child is 
naturally incapable of understanding a precept, why 
does the parent give it ? When a reasonable parent 
perceives that a child has misunderstood his precept 
through a defect of intellect, or ignorance of the 
meaning of words, he of course excuses the child : 
so we may presume it is with our heavenly Father. 



LETTER IX. 



THE INJUNCTIONS AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Among the numerous injunctions of the Sa- 
viour there is perhaps not one which has been treat- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 61 

ed with less respect or more frequently violated 
than the following : 

" Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with 
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and 
with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to 
you again." Matt. vii. 1, 2. 

Luke has expressed the injunction, differently : 

" Judge not and ye shall not be judged. Con- 
demn not, and ye shall not be condemned." Luke 
vi. 37. 

How very little are these injunctions regarded by 
different sects of Christians in their treatment of 
one another ! It will be pleaded that no one can 
suppose that Christ meant to prohibit ail kinds and 
instances of judging. He could not mean to pro- 
hibit judicial decisions in courts of justice, and 
probably nothing w 7 as prohibited by these injunc- 
tions but what may properly be called rash and cen- 
sorious judging or condemning one another. Be it 
even so. What then is rash and censorious judging? 
If I judge and condemn my brother as a wicked 
man merely because he dissents from my opinion 
respecting some important texts which we both 
admit to be genuine Scripture, am I not chargeable 
with rash and censorious judging ? Or if I say that 
it is owing to the wickedness of his heart that he 
dissents from me, is not this rash and censorious? 
How often has the censorious accuser been the one 
in error ? Was not Jesus in the right, as to his 
opinion of what it was lawful to do on the Sabbath ? 
Yet on account of his healing on that day the Phar- 



62 LETTERS 

isees ventured to say " We know that this man is a 
sinner J Why then may I not be liable to a similar 
error when I thus judge my dissenting brother? If 
I am not inspired, how do I know that the error is 
not on my part ? Or that my brother is less honest 
than I am in his inquiries after truth? 

The reason given by Christ why we should for- 
bear judging is deserving of notice. " For with 
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; and 
with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to 
you again. " This I consider as similar to the ad- 
monition given to Peter, " For he that taketh the 
sword shall perish by the sword." It was not, I 
conceive, the intention of our Saviour to be under- 
stood in either case, that the wrong done would in 
every instance be retaliated ; nor that those who 
should retaliate would do right ; but to forewarn 
his disciples of what would be the natural conse- 
quence of such rash and injurious measures. As a 
motive to forbear such conduct, he would have his 
disciples keep in view the common retributions of 
providence, even in the present state. Now what 
is more common than for censorious persons to be 
censured ? Or for warriors, duellists and assassins, 
to perish by the sword, or suffer a violent death ? 

Another precept of Christ is this — " All things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do 
ye even so to them." This precept is as applica- 
ble to judging one another as to any part of human 
conduct. But where is the Christian who " would" 



TO CHRISTIANS. 63 

that his brother should impute supposed errors of 
opinion to the wickedness of his heart 1 If I would 
that others should forbear thus to judge me, then of 
course I should forbear thus to judge them. This 
is called the Golden Rule on account of its excel- 
lence. But alas, how often is it treated by professed 
Christians as of no worth at all ! 

I have still another precept of Christ to exhibit ; 
but I shall first present his example ; because the 
other precept makes his example the rule of our 
conduct. 

The dispute by the way. 

On a certain occasion, Jesus thus interrogated 
his disciples, " What was it that ye disputed by the 
way ? But they held their peace ; for by the way 
they had disputed among themselves, who should 
be the greatest." Mark ix. 33 — 4. The circum- 
stances of this case are remarkable. So also was 
our Lord's manner of treating his apostles on that 
occasion, while they were in gross errors of opinion. 
Though they had been for a considerable time in his 
family, and under his tuition, daily hearing his dis- 
courses and witnessing his miracles, they still re- 
tained the errors of education respecting the object 
of his mission and the nature of his kingdom. 
From various facts it is obvious that they supposed 
the Messiah was to be a temporal prince, that his 
kingdom was to be of this world, that he would 
reign on the throne of David, and deliver the Jews 
from their subjection to the Romans. As Christ 



64 LETTERS 

had selected the twelve for his special associates, 
they naturally supposed that they should be his prin- 
cipal ministers, when he should assume the regal 
power. The dispute by the way appears to have 
been on this question, Who of them should be the 
first minister of state. It seems that more than one 
of them was ambitious for this dignity. On another 
occasion James and John appear to have solicited 
the two highest offices, one on his right hand, the 
other on his left ; and their mother is represented as 
having urged the same request in their behalf. 
What would now be thought of ministers of the 
Gospel who should evince such ignorance and error 
respecting the purpose of the Messiah's mission, 
and the nature of his kingdom ! 

How then did Christ treat these erring apostles? 
Did he denounce them as his enemies ? Did he 
impute their error of opinion to the depravity of their 
hearts ? Did he show towards them any bitterness 
or alienation ? Not any thing of this kind is to be 
found on record. When he saw them struck dumb 
by his questions, — " What is it that ye disputed by 
the way V " He called a little child and set him in 
the midst of them," as an emblem of that humility 
which became them as his disciples, and said to 
them " Except ye be converted and become as little 
children, ye shall notenter into the kingdom of God." 
Matt, xviii. 2. This was, indeed, a reproof, not for 
their errors of opinion, but for their ambition and 
contention. In further discoursing with them, he 
let them know that he that would be great in his 



TO CHRISTIANS. 65 

kingdom, must be like his Lord, of a meek and 
humble temper, ready to be " servant of all" in the 
work of doing good. It is, however, a remarkable 
fact, that the apostles retained their error in regard 
to the object of his mission and the nature of his 
kingdom, till the very moment of his ascension. For 
it appears that the last question they proposed to 
him implied that error. — " Wilt thou at this time 
restore again the kingdom unto Israel t" In reply 
he said to them, " It is not f)r you to know the 
times and the seasons which the Father hath put in 
his own power. But ye shall receive power after that 
the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be 
witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and 
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. 
And when he had spoken these things, while they 
beheld, he was taken up and a cloud received him 
out of their sight." Acts i. 6, 7, 8. 

To me it is probable that the apostles had suppos- 
ed the mission of the Messiah to be for a two- fold pur- 
pose : the religious reformation of the Jews, and their 
political redemption from the Roman yoke. But 
it is pretty evident that the latter purpose w r as re- 
garded by them as the main object; and that they 
possessed no clear views of the nature of his king- 
dom till they were miraculously endued on the day 
of Pentecost. Yet Christ bore with them, continu- 
ed them in his service, instructed them as they were 
able to receive, and finally employed them as his 
apostles of salvation. He not only assured them of 
his own love, but of the love of the Father, on ac- 



66 LETTERS 

count of their love to him, and their belief that he 
" proceeded forth and came from God." This was 
tlone in the last interview prior to his death ; and in 
the same interview he gave them his New command- 
ment. " A new commandment/ 5 said he " I give 
unto you, that ye love one another as 1 have loved 
you," to which I shall now pay some attention. 

This command he repeatedly uttered in the same 
conversation, as though it were of the very first im- 
portance, and on obedience to which, very much 
was depending. It may naturally be inquired, why 
was Jesus so urgent and impressive in giving this 
precept to his disciples 1 And why did he so long 
defer to correct their errors relating to his mission 
and his kingdom ? As Jesus knew what was in 
man, he very well knew that his disciples in all ages 
would be liable to errors, and to differences of opin- 
ion, while in the body. He also knew how prone 
mankind are to judge and censure one another on 
account of differences of opinion, or supposed errors. 
He knew, too, of how great importance it would be 
that his apostles should be united in affection, and 
show a constant regard to his precepts in their ex- 
amples before the world. He had before given 
them the Golden Rule ; but this was more liable to 
be misapprehended than a precept founded on his 
own example — on what they all knew to have been 
his conduct towards them. He therefore gave them 
the " new commandment," which, every time it 
should occur to their minds, must naturally bring to 
view his example as the standard of their love one 



TO CHRISTIANS. 67 

to another. " This is my commandment, that ye 
love one another, as I have loved you.' 5 

There might be several reasons why Christ neg- 
lected to explain to his apostles at an earlier period 
the nature of his kingdom, and to show them clearly 
their error in supposing that he had come to reign 
as a temporal Prince, f shall however mention but 
one. The course which he adopted gave an oppor- 
tunity to evince by his own example the spirit of be- 
nignity and forbearance, which would become his 
followers in their treatment one of another, in re- 
gard to supposed or real errors of opinion. Had 
there been no difference of opinion between him and 
his apostles, there would have been no opportunity 
for such a display of forbearing love as he evinced 
towards them. Hence the new commandment could 
not have appeared with the force and importance 
which it now does, in view of all the circumstances 
under which it was delivered. The apostles them- 
selves could not have had a perfect view of its 
force and beauty till the day of Pentecost, when 
their eyes were opened. But after this, they 
x:ould see what errors they had entertained during 
the whole of Christ's ministry, and what forbearing 
kindness he had constantly displayed towards them, 
notwithstanding their errors. How affecting and 
impressive must have been the recollection of his 
words. — " This is my commandment, that ye love 
one another as I have loved you !" So when differ- 
ences of opinion afterwards occurred between any 
of the apostles, or between them and other disciples, 



68 LETTERS 

this new commandment was at hand, as a light to 
their feet and a lamp to their way. 

This precept was addressed to the apostles, who 
had personally witnessed and experienced Christ's 
candor and benignity towards erring men ; and the 
words may be regarded as the injunction of ahead of 
a family when about to leave his children ; but it 
was doubtless meant for the benefit of Christians in 
all succeeding ages. For it was at the close of the 
interview in which this command was uttered, that 
Jesus poured out his soul in prayer to the Father, 
that all who should become believers in him might 
" be one." It is the love required by this command- 
ment, which unites Christians to one another and to 
their Lord. 

Had Christians from the beginning been duly 
mindful of the dying injunction and prayer of Christ, 
they never could have been divided into hos- 
tile sects and parties ; every species of persecution 
would have been avoided ; and Christians would 
have been distinguished in every age by the charac- 
teristic mentioned by their Lord : — " By this shall 
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have 
love one to another." 



TO CHRISTIANS. 69 



LETTER X. 



Paul's reasonings and expostulations with 
coxntending christians at rome. 

My Christian Brethren, 

In the time of Paul, the church at Rome was 
composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles, or 
of converts to Christianity from these two classes of 
people. As these converts had been differently ed- 
ucated, they possessed clashing prejudices and opin- 
ions, relating to certain rituals and observances of 
the Jewish religion. This diversity of opinion and 
prejudice, gave rise not only to disputation but to 
censorious judging ; Paul wrote to them on the sub- 
ject, and exerted his reasoning powers and his in- 
fluence, to check the propensity to censoriousness, 
and to show them how the controversy might be put 
to rest. As he was an inspired teacher, it may be 
useful to observe his manner of treating his brethren, 
some of whom he knew to be in error. 

" Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but 
not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth 
that he may eat all things ; another who is weak 
eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him 
that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not, 
judge him that eateth ; for God hath received him. 
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? 
To his ow r n Master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he 

E 



70 LETTERS 

shall be holden up, for God is able to make him 
stand. One man esteemeth one day above another. 
Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man 
be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regard- 
eth the day, regardeth it to the Lord ; and he that 
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not re- 
gard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord ; for he 
giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the 
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. — But 
why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou 
set at nought thy brother? For we must all stand 
before the judgment seat of Christ/' Rom. xiv. 1 — 6, 
and 10th. 

In this passage we have a case in which a differ- 
ence of opinion had occasioned serious difficulty, 
and censorious judging. Christians of the present 
time will probably say, that the questions in dispute, 
were trifling, and ought to have occasioned no aliena- 
tion among brethren. The questions, however, did 
not appear to be trifling to the parties concerned ; 
and they were not, perhaps, in reality more trifling 
or unimportant than most of the questions in dis- 
pute at the present day. Party spirit can magnify 
the importance of any subject in favor of which it is 
indulged. Besides, the questions at Rome involved 
cases of conscience in relation to duty; and such 
questions cannot appear trifling to conscientious 
persons. No difficulty, however, would have occur- 
red, no censorious judging, had each party been 
willing that the other should obey the dictates of 
conscience, without molestation or censure. But 



TO CHRISTIANS. 71 

one assumed the right of judging for the other ; and 
this always tends to mischief. I may then observe 
the manner in which Paul expostulated with these 
contending Christians. 

1. Paul did not assume the right of blaming either 
party, on account of the opinions entertained. One 
party or the other must, indeed, have erred in judg- 
ment, and Paul doubtless knew which party had the 
more correct opinion. But it appears that the error 
of opinion was regarded by him as of little consider- 
ation, compared with the error of temper, which 
each party indulged towards the other. He well 
knew that people were liable to differ in opinion, 
and that it was the duty of each to love God with 
all his own understanding, and to do what he con- 
scientiously believed that God required of him. 
Paul did not impute the error of opinion to wicked- 
ness of heart. He had not so learned Christ, nor 
his religion. 

2. Paul gave the parties clearly to understand, 
that if they obeyed the dictates of conscience, act- 
ing uprightly for God, error of opinion would not 
prevent the acceptableness of their different modes 
of conduct. Though the parties differed in practice 
as well as opinion in regard to days and meats ; yet 
he charitably expressed the opinion, that both parties 
aimed at the same end, and that the conduct of each 
was acceptable in the sight of God. " He that re- 
gardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord ; and he 
that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not 



72 LETTERS 

regard it ;" that is, they both aimed at the glory of 
the Lord. 

3. We should observe with what solemnity the 
apostle expostulated with the parties, on account of 
their contention and censorious judging. " Who 
art thou that judgest another man's servant? To 
his own Master he standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall 
be holden up, for God is able to make him stand." 
Again, " Why dost thou judge thy brother ? Or 
why dost thou set at nought thy brother 1 For 
we must all stand before the judgment seat of 
Christ." Thus while he blamed neither party, on 
account of its opinions, he blamed both for their 
contention, and their censorious manner of judging 
one another. 

4. It is to be remarked that Paul did not so 
much as express his opinion on the questions in dis- 
pute, till he had assured them that their difference 
of opinion was not a proper ground of contention or 
of censure. But having expostulated with them on 
the unreasonableness of their censorious conduct 
one towards the other, he expressed his opinion on 
a question in dispute. " I know, and am persuaded 
by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in 
itself." He, however, immediately adds, — " but to 
him that thinketh anything unclean, to him it is un- 
clean" 

By this decision he clearly maintained that the 
conscience or judgment of every person, in view of 
the divine requirements, must be the rule of his 
duty. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 16 

Dr. Macknight has an important note on the 6th 
verse of this chapter, a part of which may here be 
quoted. " Every man ought to believe concern- 
ing his neighbor that in all religious matters he acts 
according to conscience, especially if he professes 
so to do ; and though his conscience may be ill in- 
formed ; he should be left to its dictates in these 
matters. The Greek commentators affirm that the 
rules in this chapter relate to meats and fastings 
only, and not to doctrines of faith and matters of 
great importance. But I see no reason for that lim- 
itation. The rights of conscience and private judg- 
ment are the more sacred, the more important the 
affairs are about which they are exercised. And, 
therefore, in everything of importance, as well as in 
lesser matters, a man's own judgment and con- 
science, and not the opinion and conscience of an- 
other, are appointed by Christ to be the rule of his 
conduct." 



LETTER XI. 

THE APOSTLE JAMES ON CENSORIOUS JUDGING. 

My Christian Brethren, 

The following impressive language was ad- 
dressed by James to the Christians of his day. 



74 LETTERS 

" Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He 
that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his 
brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the 
law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer 
of the law, but a judge. There is one law-giver 
who is able to save and to destroy. Who art thou 
that judgest another. 5 ' James iv. 11, 12. 

The following remarks are from Dr. Mack night's 
paraphrase of the two verses. " Speak not against 
one another, brethren, on account of your difference 
of opinions in religion. He who speaketh against 
his brother and condemneth his brother in matters 
pertaining to conscience, speaketh against the law 
both of Moses and Christ, which forbids that kind 
of speaking. Thou, who art thou that condemnest 
thy brother, and thereby assumest the prerogative of 
Christl" 

It may be asked, how can it be said that in judg- 
ing and condemning a brother on account of his 
religious opinions, we judge and condemn the law ? 
We practically judge and condemn the law when 
we do that which the law prohibits ; for the language 
of our conduct is, that the law is unworthy to be 
obeyed. The law forbids bearing false witness; and 
I may be guilty of bearing false witness if I accuse 
a man of moral evil without evidence of his guilt. 
His differing from me in opinion is no proof of guilt 
on his part, for his opinion may be right while I 
think it to be erroneous ; or if his opinion is not 
right, he may have been led into error by causes 
very different from that of a depraved heart. The 



TO CHRISTIANS. 75 

law requires my neighbor to love God with all his 
understanding, and not with mine. His differing 
from me is no proof that he does not love God with 
all his understanding. By condemning him I im- 
plicitly say, that the law is not as it should be, and 
that the man is blameable for not loving God ac- 
cording to my understanding. Again the law says, 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." I must 
therefore be as tender of my brother's character as I 
wish him to be of mine. Do I then think it right in 
him, not only to impute to me error of opinion, but 
to ascribe that opinion to the pride or wickedness 
of my heart ? If not, I practically speak against the 
law when I thus accuse my brother. 

It would be in vain to search the scriptures for 
more clear prohibitions and expostulations against 
murder, than we have against reviling and cen- 
sorious judging on account of differences of 
opinion ; and is it not a lamentable truth that in 
each of the cases Christians have too commonly 
regarded custom as of higher authority than 
the prohibitions of God ? The sixth commandment 
is, " Thou shalt do no murder ;" but as soon as the 
rulers of two nations have declared war against each 
other, murder is regarded as not only lawful but 
laudable. So as soon as the ministers of one sect 
of Christians have ventured to denounce the people 
of another sect as heretics, the commands, "judge 
not" " condemn not," " speak not evil one of anoth- 
er," are treated with as little regard as the sixth 
commandment is in time of war. As in time of 
national hostilities, killing men is deemed a duty 



76 LETTERS 

and not a crime, so it is with censorious judging in 
time of sectarian hostilities ; and in both cases the 
most glaring violations of the divine commands are 
vindicated on the principles of necessity and self 
preservation. 

There are other melancholy coincidences in these 
two cases. In time of war the leaders of one party 
will deliver harangues, publish tracts, and insert 
articles in newspapers, of the most inflammatory 
kind, to excite a spirit of hostility against the people 
of another country, against eminent individuals, 
against the nation as a body, against thousands of 
better people than themselves, and against myriads 
of whose real characters they are perfectly ignorant. 
I appeal to the consciences of my fellow Christians 
to say, whether this atrocious policy has not its 
parallel in sectarian hostilities ! Besides, when the 
rulers of a nation make war, not one in a hundred 
of those who engage in the quarrel, have any correct 
knowledge respecting the real grounds of the con- 
test, nor is in a capacity to judge on which side 
there is the greater share of blame, nor whether, on 
the whole, there was the least cause or necessity 
for such a war. Yet, relying on their leaders, they 
will calumniate, condemn and fight. I need not 
show how this has a parallel in sectarian wars. But 
I may express the opinion that in both cases the 
laws of Christ are flagrantly violated ; that Christian- 
ity can never appear to advantage till such customs 
are abolished ; and that in both cases an awful share 
of responsibility is attached to the conduct of those 
who take the lead in such conflicts. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 77 

In national wars, love of country is the boast of 
each party in the quarrel, yet the course pursued 
tends directly to fill both countries with crime and 
calamity. So in sectarian strife men profess to be 
influenced by love to Christ, love to the truth, and 
love to the souls of men. Yet the strife is carried 
on by disobedience to the commands of Christ — by 
conduct manifestly repugnant to his example and 
the spirit of his religion — by conduct too, which 
really tends to the ruin of souls. The love required 
by the gospel worketh no ill to its neighbor. Can 
this be said of the love displayed in the wars of 
nations, or the wars of diiferent sects of Christians? 
If not, what awful delusions have prevailed in both 
cases ! And how constantly is the reproof applica- 
ble — " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are 
of!" If God should be strict to mark this iniquity > 
who among us would be found able to stand ? 



LETTER XII, 



\ 



FALSE STANDARDS OCCASION FALSE ESTIMATES. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Mankind in their commercial dealings are often 
defrauded by the use of false balances, weights and 



78 LETTERS 

measures. In the concerns of religion, standards 
are used for estimating the characters and actions of 
men. Here, as well as in commerce, there may be 
false standards by which men may deceive, and be 
deceived. By adopting a false standard, the people 
of one sect may overrate their own worth, and under- 
value the worth of people of other sects. It hence 
becomes a serious question whether false standards 
are not in use at the present day ? and whether these 
are not the occasion of much censorious judging, as 
well as of self-deception ? 

Ever since Christians were divided into sects, 
creeds or confessions of faith have been set up as 
standards of character, or tests of moral worth. That 
many of these standards have been false may be ob- 
vious from the following considerations : — 

1. In all the creed-making sects, each sect has a 
standard of its own, which is different, and in some 
particulars often directly opposite to that of another 
sect. Of course, there must be a false standard with 
one or the other, and perhaps with both of the two 
clashing sects. 

2. It is a known fact that the creed of a sect may 
become so changed in a course of years, that what 
was once deemed essential, is afterwards deemed er- 
roneous ; still the sect may retain its distinctive 
name. 

3. All party standards are formed by substituting 
the inferences or explanations of fallible men for the 
language of the inspired writers : and these tests, 
formed in the words of man's wisdom, are preferred 



TO CHRISTIANS. 79 

to the language of the Bible, and are passed as a sub- 
stitute for the word of God, as bank bills are made a 
substitute for silver and gold. Is there nothing in 
this of too near an approach to self-sufficiency and 
self-exaltation ? 

4. " The poor have the gospel preached to them" 
— was a circumstance mentioned by our Lord, as a 
proof that the gospel day had commenced ; because 
it had been predicted that such should be the case 
in the days of the Messiah, and that the way of ho- 
liness should be so plain as to be easily understood 
by the illiterate and the way-faring man. But what 
advantage can the gospel be to the illiterate and to 
children, if they are to be measured by such stand- 
ards as have been adopted by many of the creed-making 
sects ? How great a portion of those who give their 
assent to such creeds, are totally incapable of judg- 
ing of their truth or correctness. Suppose I should 
subscribe a creed in a foreign language with which 
I am unacquainted, to obtain Christian privileges ; 
what would be thought of me ? and what should be 
thought of those who require such a subscription? 

5. So far as articles of faith are made a test of 
character in the New Testament, they are the follow- 
ing : 

That Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living 
God : and 

That God raised him from the dead. 

A belief in the first of these articles was the test 
of discipleship during the ministry of Christ. After 
his crucifixion, a belief in his resurrection became 



80 LETTERS 

necessary to a belief that he was the Messiah. Hence 
a belief in the second article was required, as added 
by the Apostles. Accordingly Paul in stating the 
faith required said, " That is the word of faith which 
we preach — that if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart 
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
saved." John, in stating the object for which he 
wrote his gospel, said, u These things are written that 
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God, and that believing ye might have life through 
his name." To persuade people to believe the two 
articles which have been named, was the great ob- 
ject of the sermons recorded in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. These, if I mistake not, are the only articles 
of faith, a belief of which is spoken of in the New 
Testament as necessary to the Christian character, 
or as connected with regeneration, pardon, or eternal 
life. 

A cordial belief in these articles naturally led to 
obedience to the precepts of Christ, and these are 
the appointed standard or test of moral character. 
Avowing a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, appears to 
have given such satisfaction to the Apostles, that, on 
such a profession, 3000 persons were admitted as 
converts or believers on the day of pentecost, the 
very day on which their profession was made. To 
be a disciple of Christ then meant to be a pupil or 
learner in his school. For admission to this school 
or the church of Christ, no articles of faith were 
proposed as terms, but the two which have been men- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 81 

tioned. We are not, however, to suppose that noth- 
ing was required of disciples but a belief in these 
articles, nor that Christ instituted no other test of 
moral character. As the followers of Jesus were 
then a persecuted people, to acknowledge him as the 
Messiah under such circumstances, afforded much 
evidence of integrity of heart; and when a person 
made this profession, he implicitly professed a desire 
to come under the guidance of Christ, and a willing- 
ness to conform to his precepts and example. Hence- 
forth the precepts of Christ were to be regarded by 
him as the rule of duty, and the test of Christian 
character. That this is a correct view of the sub- 
ject may appear from the following passages : — 

" Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, 
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that 
doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matt, 
vii. 21. " Therefore, whosoever heareth these say- 
ings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a 
wise man who built his house upon a rock." v. 27. 
11 And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come 
after me cannot be my disciple.' 5 Luke xiv, 27. " He 
that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he 
it is thatloveth me." John xiv. 21. " If ye keep my 
commandments ye shall abide in my love." John xv. 
10. " This is my commandment, that ye love one 
another as I have loved you." v. 12. " Ye are my 
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." v. 14. 
" Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep 
his commandments. He that saith I know him, and 



82 LETTERS 

keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the 
truth is not in him." 1 John ii. 3, 4. 

Besides these plain declarations, as to the proper 
standard of Christian character, we are assured both 
by Christ and his apostles, that works of obedience 
will be rewarded at the final account, and that works 
of disobedience will be punished. Bat where shall 
we find in the Bible the least evidence that any man 
will be rewarded or accepted on account of his be- 
lief qf such doctrines as are at this day made the test 
of Christian character ? I know not ; and I suspect 
that, after due examination, every honest man will be 
able to say the same. 

Before I dismiss the subject of false standards or 
tests, it may be proper to mention one more, which 
I deem as dangerous as a party creed. It has been 
the opinion of many persons of different sects, that 
the heart of a true Christian, a spiritually-minded 
man, is a good test of the truth or falsehood of a 
proposed doctrine — that if the doctrine be true, it 
will be sweet to his taste — if false, it will be disgust- 
ing. Hence a believer in this opinion is prepared to 
say, " I know that this or that doctrine is hue from 
my own experience," and in the same confident man- 
ner he will affirm of another doctrine that he Jcnoios 
it to be false. On this principle too, the same per- 
sons often feel at liberty to censure the hearts of their 
dissenting brethren. This opinion has ever appear- 
ed to me delusive and dangerous ; and in support of 
this view of it, I shall suggest the following consid- 
erations. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 83 

1. Persons of different sects urge the same mode 
of proof in favor of opposite doctrines, each aflirm- 
ing that he knows his beloved doctrine to be true from 
his own experience, or its agreement with his own 
heart. When such opposite results occur from the 
same mode of proof, there must be gross delusion on 
one side or the other, and it may be so on both. 

2. I believe it to be a fact that a good Christian 
will receive for truth any doctrine which he believes 
to have been revealed by God — just as a dutiful and 
conhding child will receive for truth whatever his pi- 
ous parent inculcates as true and important. But 
such is the ambiguity of language, and such the im- 
perfection of the child's understanding, that he may 
misapprehend the meaning of the words uttered by 
his father, and imbibe an idea jery different from 
the one the parent meant to impress on his mind. In 
like manner the humble and confiding child of God 
may form an incorrect idea from the language used 
in the Bible. Besides, as children have very fallible 
guides in their parents, so have adult Christians falli- 
ble expositors in their public teachers. 

3. There are thousand of cases in which falsehood 
will afford as great, and even greater delight to a 
good man than the truth. I will give one example — 
A benevolent father hears that his prodigal son, who 
had been absent for ten years, is now on his return, 
a penitent and reformed man. The report is accom- 
panied with such circumstancesas precludes all doubt 
of its correctness. The father's heart leaps for joy. 
But alas ! the report was founded on a mistake, and 



84 LETTERS 

of this the father is informed by the next mail. The 
report, however, while uncontradicted, had the same 
effect that it would have had if true ; — and the fa- 
ther's feeling towards his son were as apparent and as 
commendable as they would have been had there 
been no mistake in the case. 

Should it be said that this case cannot illustrate 
the effect of divine truth on the mind of a good man, 
I may ask, why not? The report was indeed of an 
historic nature ; but the same may be said of many 
of the important truths of the gospel. It was so with 
the glad tidings of the birth of the Messiah ; and 
such were the truths relating to his baptism, his min- 
istry, his miracles, his death, his resurrection and 
ascension. Historical truths, therefore, may be di- 
vine truths of the first importance. 

4. When any person makes his own heart or ex- 
perience a test, by which to judge of the truth or 
falsehood of a particular doctrine, he assumes more 
than can be easily reconciled to Christian humility. 
For he assumes for a fact that he is not, like other 
men, liable to be misled by false information, by the 
ambiguity of words or phrases, by passion, nor by 
prejudice — in a word, that his mind is so enlighten- 
ed and his heart so pure, that he is far less liable to 
err than any one of the multitude of people who 
dissent from his opinions. 

Were there no other way to account for the pleas- 
ure which a good man feels in hearing a certain 
doctrine, but its truth, there would be less of danger 
in his making his heart a test of truth than now ex- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 85 

ists. But even in that case, his delight could be proof 
only to himself, unless others could know the state 
of his heart. Could it be shown that a good man's 
heart is an infallible test of truth, and could a man 
be found whose goodness would be universally ac- 
knowledged, then whatever creed he should approve 
might be safely adopted, and made a test by which 
to estimate the hearts of his fellow-men. But where 
shall such a man be found ? Should any one pro- 
pose himself for such a purpose, might not his hu- 
mility be justly called in question ? Yet what better 
than such arrogance is seen in any man who makes 
his own heart the test of truth, and his own creed 
the standard by which to estimate the moral worth of 
his fellow-men ? 

I have not a doubt that thousands of pious Catho- 
lics have found great delight in the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, while partaking of the bread and wine 
in the Lord's supper. But their delight results from 
a belief that the doctrine is true, and not from the 
truth of the doctrine. So good people of each sect 
may find pleasure in their respective doctrines, from 
a belief that they are true, honorable to God, and 
useful to man. Such pleasure in a doctrine may be 
a proof that it is sincerely believed to be true, but 
not a proof of its truth or correctness. 



bb LETTERS 

LETTER XIII. 

THE DISREGARDED PARABLE. 

My Christian Brethren, 

The Gospel contains one parable which seems 
to me to have been very much overlooked or disre- 
garded. I shall copy the parable according to New- 
combe's translation. " Then he spake a parable to 
those that were invited, when he marked how they 
chose out of the chief places ; saying unto them, 
When thou art invited by any man to a marriage 
feast, take not the chief place ; lest a more honora- 
ble man than thou be invited by him ; and he that 
invited thee and him come, and say to thee, Give 
place to this man ; and then thou begin to take the 
lowest place with shame. But when thou art invi- 
ted, go and take the lowest place ; that, when he 
who invited thee cometh, he may say unto thee, 
Friend, go up higher. Then thou wilt have honor 
in the presence of those that are at meat with thee. 
For every one that exalteth himself shall be hum- 
bled ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalt- 
ed." Luke xiv. 7—10. 

On three different occasions our Lord uttered the 
words with which this parable is closed. The par- 
able of the Pharisee and Publican is closed in the 
same manner ; and the same words were also used 
when the Messiah cautioned his disciples against 



TO CHRISTIANS. 87 

imitating the arrogance of the Pharisees, who loved 
the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief seats in the 
synagogues, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. 
The reason which he gave for the caution was this, 
11 For every one that exalteth himself shall be abas- 
ed ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. " 
We may therefore feel assured that these words con- 
tain a lesson of great importance, and that the par- 
able which has been quoted, and so often disregard- 
ed, was uttered by our Lord for a higher purpose 
than merely to teach his disciples a principle of po- 
liteness, or how they should conduct at common 
marriage feasts. More than once he represented 
the Gospel message as an invitation to a marriage 
feast, or great supper. Nor can it be doubted that 
by the parable it was his purpose to teach his disci- 
ples a lesson of gospel humility, and to beware of 
indulging an undue self-esteem in comparing them- 
selves with others. He well knew how prone men 
are to overrate their own moral worth, and to mis- 
take or undervalue the characters of those who dis- 
sent from their views. 

This admonitory parable is worthy to be regarded 
by different sects of Christians, as well as by indi- 
viduals of the same sect. Those who are well ac- 
quainted with the present state of things in our 
own country must be aware, that persons of more 
than one sect are eager for the higher places, and 
assume them with very little ceremony. Nor are 
there wanting persons who seem disposed to assume 
the authority of the Master of the Gospel feast, and 



OO LETTERS 

to exclude from any place at their Lord's table such 
as cannot acquiesce in their party creeds. Of the 
many who claim the higher places, some of them 
must be disappointed when the King shall come in 
to view the guests, and assign to each his rank. 
They cannot all possess the places which they have 
claimed ; and how, on that occasion, will those feel 
who shall be ordered to " go down lower" and 
"give place" perhaps to thousands who are now by 
them despised as unworthy of any place in the fam- 
ily of Christ. In this way will probably be fulfilled 
or verified another admonitory remark of our Lord : 
— " Many that are first shall be last, and the last 
shall be first." Those who are now first in self-es- 
teem have reason to fear and tremble. For every 
one that exalteth himself shall be abased ; and he 
that humbleth himself shall be exalted. 

What intelligent and good person does not know 
that men are very liable to err in estimating their 
own characters, and in comparing them with the 
characters of others ? And since our Lord has 
given us such solemn and repeated admonitions on 
this very subject, is it not surprising that so many of 
different sects are to be found, who unblushingly 
assume the higher places ; and who practically, if 
not verbally, say that they are much better than any 
who dissent from their opinions ? If this be not 
exalting themselves, I know of nothing in human 
conduct to which the admonitory parable will apply. 

Is it not too common to see in the writings of par- 
tizans of different sects, not merely rash censures of 



TO CHRISTIANS. 89 

the opinions of others, but of the hearts or moral 
characters of all who possess such opinions ? Are 
not similar censures also heard from the pulpit, and 
seen in the manner in which the people of one de- 
nomination treat their brethren of another 1 How 
much more of Gospel humility and Christian love 
would writers and preachers display, if they would 
kindly endeavor to convince others of their suppos- 
ed errors in opinion, and leave the judgment of 
their moral condition to Him who knows the heart, 
and who has said to his fallible disciples " Judge 
not" — " Condemn not." Some self-confident per- 
sons probably think there can be little danger of 
their censuring good persons, while they only con- 
demn such as they verily believe to be in error. But 
let them remember with what daring confidence the 
scribes and pharisees censured Him whom the Fa- 
ther had sent to be the Saviour of the world. 

What well informed Protestant has not been 
shocked at the confidence with which some Catho- 
lics have asserted the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
and denounced as heretics all who deny that doc- 
trine! But this indiscreet conduct of a Catholic 
may be a mirror in which many Protestants may see 
their own dispositions. The Catholic has as good 
a right to assume the highest place as the Protes- 
tant ; but neither of them can do it without expos- 
ing himself to the dishonor of being publicly told 
by the Master of the feast to take a lower place. 
For those who have the better claim to the higher 
places, are too humble to assume them, or to take 
them without being ordered so to do. 



LETTERS 



In extempore speaking men have not always suf- 
ficient time for premeditation, and in the heat of 
their zeal, they are very liable to utter things which 
will not bear an impartial review, and which are un- 
justly reproachful to others. But in writing for the 
pulpit or the press, I think it would be a good rule, 
after having written, seriously to examine the copy 
and inquire, whether nothing has been penned which 
is contrary to the New Commandment, or the Gol- 
den Rule — nothing which evinces the disposition to 
take the highest place, or that must excite the idea 
that the writer is one of those who " trust in them- 
selves that they are righteous and despise others." 
In such a review of what has been written, it might 
be useful for the writer to inquire, how the language 
and tone he has used would be likely to appear to 
him, if adopted by a person of another denomina- 
tion against himself; and then erase whatever he 
would deem anti-christian and unkind, if used by 
another in an exchange of circumstances. Should 
the parable of our Lord be duly regarded in future, 
in conducting religious Newspapers and other Peri- 
odicals, the effects may be happy in relation to the 
progress of religion, and the peace of the Christian 
world. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 91 

LETTER XIV. 

EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS. 

My Christian Brethren, 

Seldom, if ever, had any ministers of religion 
greater provocation to use the language of reproach, 
or more sure ground on which to censure the hearts 
of fellow-men, than the evangelists had to judge and 
censure the Scribes and Pharisees, and others who 
were agents in persecuting the Messiah. In this 
case there was something more than a diversity of 
opinion — there were acts of flagrant injustice and 
abuse. What then was the manner of the evangel- 
ists in writing the history of our Lord, and the treat- 
ment he received from his persecutors ? 

In writing their histories, the evangelists had fre- 
quent occasion to state the opposition which the 
Messiah received — the manner in which he was 
treated — the snares which were laid to entangle him, 
and the accusations brought against him. Near the 
close of their history they had occasion to state the 
conduct of the chief priests, the sanhedrim, and rulers 
of the people, in hiring Judas to betray him, in em- 
ploying soldiers to arrest him — their treatment of 
him while on trial — suborning false-witnesses, their 
mockings and derisions, their sending him to Pilate 
to obtain a sentence of crucifixion, their stirring up 
the people and exciting the clamorous cry — " Cruci- 
fy him ! Crucify him !" They also mention what oc- 



92 LETTERS 

curred at the crucifixion — how even the ministers of 
religion insulted him in his agonies. 

Now let it be remembered that all these writers 
were friends and disciples of Jesus : and two of them 
his apostles, who had witnessed his ministry, were 
members of his family, and strongly attached to 
him as their Lord. It may also be considered how 
certain it was to them that the character of Jesus was 
without spot and blameless ; that his doctrines and 
precepts were divine truth, and of the highest im- 
portance to mankind. And that all the opposition 
against him was groundless and unreasonable. Had 
the evangelists then been influenced by party feel- 
ings, we should doubtless have found in their narra- 
tives severe reproaches and accusations against the 
persecutors of the Messiah, and high encomiums of 
his character and conduct. But in vain do we look 
into their writings for anything of this kind. In the 
most simple and artless manner they related such 
facts as might enable others to judge of the conduct 
and character of the parties. As became faithful 
and dispassionate witnesses, they impartially gave 
their testimony to facts. They neither applaud their 
Lord, nor reproach his enemies, by expressing their 
own feelings in favor of him or against them. " The 
historians/' says Dr. Campbell, " speak of nothing, 
not even the most atrocious actions of our Lord's 
persecutors with symptoms of emotion — no angry 
epithet, or pathetic exclamation can escape them — 
not a word that betrays passion in the writers, or is 
calculated to excite the passions of the reader." 

These facts are remarkable ; and, in the purpose 



TO CHRISTIANS. 93 

of God, they were probably meant for our good — 
meant to have a moral influence on the ministers of 
the Gospel, on ecclesiastical historians, and on all 
who profess the religion of the Lord Jesus. If ever 
there was a time when the spirit of resentment, re- 
proach,and censure was commendable, such it would 
seem was the time when the evangelists wrote their 
histories. But where shall we find four other wri- 
ters who so perfectly conformed to our Lord's in- 
junctions, " judge not/' " condemn not," " Let your 
yea, be yea, and your nay, nay." It cannot be 
doubted that the evangelists clearly understood the 
meaning of these precepts, or prohibitions; and 
they seem to have been disposed to give an example 
of obedience to them which would be worthy of im- 
itation. They had learned of him who was meek 
and lowly, and they exemplified his spirit in their 
writings. 

I cannot but regard it as one of the best evidences 
that the evangelists wrote under the influence of the 
divine spirit, that they all so perfectly agree in the 
manner of their writing, or the temper they displayed 
in speaking of men who had persecuted their Lord 
even unto death. They wrote at different times, in 
different countries, without any pre-concerted plan ; 
yet all under the direction of the same Spirit. 
Though the writers were four, the Spirit was but owe, 
and that the most amiable. 

Not only were the Evangelists of a forbearing 
spirit, in speaking of their enemies, but they were 
frank and unreserved in stating the errors and faults 



94 LETTERS 

of their own party. They not only record the con- 
duct of Judas in betraying their Lord, and the con- 
duct of Peter in denying him ; but they also re- 
cord the disputes of the apostles, about which of 
them should be the prime minister, while they were so 
in the dark as to suppose that Jesus had come to 
reign as a temporal prince on the throne of David — 
how James and John would have called fire from 
heaven to avenge the unkind treatment given to 
their Master by the Samaritans ; and how they all 
forsook him and fled, when he was arrested by a 
band of soldiers. 

The conduct of the Evangelists in recording the 
miscarriages and errors of their own party, has some- 
thing in it deserving of special notice. It does not 
appear to have been done to fix reproach on the 
character of any one, but to furnish an opportunity 
the more fully to illustrate the forbearing spirit of 
our Lord towards them, while he knew them to be 
very imperfect, and in great errors of opinion. 

How happy it would have been for the world had 
all the ministers of the Gospel uniformly displayed 
the forbearing spirit of our Lord and the four Evan- 
gelists ! But when we compare many of the wri- 
tings of ministers of past ages and of the present 
day with the writings of the Evangelists, how lament- 
able is the contrast ! When the Evangelists had 
closed their narratives of important facts, they fore- 
bore to subjoin any bitter remarks, appeals, or in- 
vectives, to excite prejudice against those who had 
acted as enemies to them or their Lord. This 
caution appears highly commendable, when we con- 






TO CHRISTIANS. 95 

sider that they were writing memoirs of one who was 
so dear to them, and how naturally it might have 
been supposed that their minds were strongly pre- 
possessed against his persecutors. How different 
from this has too often been the conduct of ministers 
of the Gospel, in speaking of brethren who only dis- 
sented from them in opinion ! How often, on such 
ground, have many ventured to censure the hearts 
of their dissenting brethren, when they might have 
known themselves to be in such a manner interested 
and prejudiced persons, as would disqualify them for 
jurors in the opinion of well-informed and impartial 
men ! And not content with this, how many, under 
such circumstances, have dared to do what they 
could to excite prejudice in the minds of others 
against their dissenting brethren ! How different 
from this were the dispositions and the conduct of 
the four Evangelists ! 



LETTER XV. 

PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OF CENSORIOUS JUDGING. 

My Christian Brethren, 

As censorious judging has been shown to be 
as clearly forbidden by the Gospel as theft or mur- 



96 LETTERS 

der, it is natural to infer, that it must be pernicious 
in its effects. Some of which have been incidentally 
mentioned ; but others of them seem to demand 
more distinct notice. 

1. Censorious judging, on account of differences 
of opinion, tends to divert the attention of people 
from the law of love as the true standard of Chris- 
tian character, and to fix it on the creed of the party 
to which the persons severally belong. Hence in- 
stead of regarding the divine precepts as a common 
standard for all, each party has a standard of its 
own ; and then party love very naturally becomes a 
substitute for that benevolence which is the fulfilling 
of the law, and the bond of peace. The conse- 
quences of this must be dreadful. 

2. The practice tends to prevent the usefulness of 
those who are censured and defamed. It cannot be 
reasonably doubted that the censorious conduct of 
the scribes and pharisees did much to prevent the 
success of the preaching of even Christ and his 
apostles. Their slanderous accusations could not 
fail to prejudice the minds of their adherents against 
the Saviour and his doctrines. New opinions, or 
opinions which are regarded as new, are very com- 
monly deemed erroneous and dangerous, whether 
they be true or false ; and their propagators are 
generally calumniated as wicked men. It was so 
with Christ and his apostles. The evils of this 
cruel and mischievous policy have been in some 
measure counteracted by that law of providence 
which usually produces in the minds of the consid- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 97 

erate a sympathy for the persecuted. Were it not 
for this, it is difficult to conceive how a reformation 
of doctrines could ever be effected against the clamor 
which is so uniformly raised against the teachers of 
new opinions. 

3. The practise of censorious judging also tends 
to diminish the usefulness of those who indulge 
themselves in it. For it tends to blind their own 
eyes, and to turn off their attention from the care of 
their own hearts — it also sours and embitters their 
minds, and thus prevents the exhibition of that meek 
and quiet spirit which is necessary to a person's own 
usefulness. Their conduct may be applauded by 
persons of their own disposition ; but the truly hum- 
ble of their own party must be shocked by the con- 
trast between such conduct and the precepts of the 
Gospel. 

4. This odious practice tends to excite and cher- 
ish the spirit of war. The war spirit is but the cen- 
sorious spirit acted out in political conflicts. Hence 
the person who indulges the censorious spirit must 
naturally be in a great measure blind to the evils of 
war and persecution. 

5. Censorious judging tends to prevent the pro- 
gress of light and truth, as well as of love and 
peace. When new views of any doctrine or of any 
passage of Scripture are discovered and proposed, 
it is by no means certain that they are true, nor 
that they are false. All improvements or advances 
are made by new discoveries. True wisdom would 
dictate that such discoveries should be examined 



98 LETTERS 

with impartiality and candor, not hastily received 
nor rashly rejected. How happy it might have been 
for myriads of the Jews had they but candidly ex- 
amined the new doctrines, or new views of religion 
inculcated by the Messiah ! But self-sufficiency 
blinded the minds of the scribes and pharisees ; so 
they rejected the counsels of God against themselves 
and led others into the ditch. — People of this age 
should take warning by iheir sad example. 

6. The practice in question has a pernicious in- 
fluence on the rising generation. It gives them 
false views of the nature of true religion. The 
children of different sects naturally imbibe the feel- 
ings as well as the opinions of their respective pa- 
rents, and of course grow up with a spirit of hostility 
towards such as are despised and reproached by 
their guides. How exceedingly pernicious must 
have been this practice to the Jewish children in 
the days of the Messiah ! Perhaps stronger preju- 
dices never existed against any Teacher than the 
unbelieving Jews indulged towards him. The chil- 
dren of course heard him reviled as a Sabbath break- 
er, a glutton, a drunkard, an impostor and a blas- 
phemer. The common people sometimes " heard 
him gladly," and they might perhaps generally have 
done so to their own advantage, had it not been for 
the slanderous tongues of their religious teachers. 
But these leading men embittered the minds of their 
followers against the Messiah, and prepared them to 
raise the cry — " Crucify him ! Crucify him !" It 
seems in fact that the prejudices thus formed and 



TO CHRISTIANS. 99 

transmitted have been hereditary evils among the 
Jews in all quarters of the world for eighteen hun- 
dred years. The Jews were indeed driven from 
their own country and dispersed among the nations; 
but wherever they went they seem to have carried 
with them their prejudices against the Messiah and 
his followers ; and their children from age to age have 
been educated in these prejudices. Similar preju- 
dices have existed between Christians and Mahome- 
tans, and between Christians of different sects one 
towards another. Children in this country — and per- 
haps in every Christian country, are trained up with 
prejudices against many good people of different de- 
nominations from the one to which they respectively 
belong ; so that these prejudices, like those of the 
Jews, are likely to be transmitted to unborn genera- 
tions. As it was among the Jews, so there is reason 
to believe it is among Christians, that the bitter prej- 
udices which exist between different sects may be 
principally ascribed to the influence of their teach- 
ers. What an awful share of responsibility then is 
connected with the conduct of such ministers as em- 
ploy their influence to excite, cherish, and inflame the 
prejudices of one sect of Christians against another! 
To reconcile such conduct with the new command- 
ment, or with the prayer of Christ for his disciples, 
is to me as impossible, as to reconcile with the same 
standards the political hostilities of Christian na- 
tions. A very great portion of the depravity of 
Christendom at the present time may perhaps be 
justly ascribed to the anti-christian practice of dif- 
ferent sects in reviling one another. 



100 LETTERS 



LETTER XVI. 



VICES COMPARED. 



My Christian Brethren, 

Within a few years that species of intemper- 
ance which results from the use of strong drink has 
excited much attention, and called forth commenda- 
ble exertions for its suppression. By publishing the 
result of various inquiries respecting the extent to 
which the vice had prevailed, and its numerous mis- 
chiefs, much astonishment was produced. People 
had not been aware of the extent of these evils ; and 
many became alarmed, and willing to make exertions 
to stop the flood which threatened to desolate the 
country. 

On further inquiry it may be found, that another 
species of intemperance prevails in the land to a 
greater extent than hard drinking ; and that its mis- 
chiefs are not less to be deplored. Censorious judg- 
ing is a vice which results from the indulgence of 
party spirit ; and this spirit is not less pernicious 
than rum or whiskey. By either of them men may 
become intoxicated even to madness, — and of course 
prove dangerous and troublesome members of soci- 
ety. Party spirit has often produced such intoxication 
as to make people believe that they were doing God 
service by flagrant violations of the law of love. In- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 101 

toxication from strong drink, seldom proceeds from 
hatred to fellow-men ; but intoxication from party 
spirit has the appearance of proceeding from ill will, 
and on this account is more odious than that which 
occurs from hard drinking. 

That species of intemperance from which censo- 
rious judging originates, is not confined to any sect 
or party, in politics or religion. It is a common and 
contagious disease — so common that its evils seem 
to be in a great measure overlooked, except by those 
who are personally assailed and injured. 

Much has been truly said of the numerous broils 
which occur in families and societies by intemperate 
drinking. Much of the boxing, duelling, and blood- 
shed in various forms is accounted for in this way. 
But do not similar evils occur from party spirit. Be- 
sides occasional paroxysms of rage and violence, how 
often has party intemperance produced long contin- 
ued agitations in families and communities, and even 
civil war, and bloody persecutions. To a dread- 
ful extent this species of intoxication prevailed in the 
times of the Messiah and his apostles. Paul was ex- 
ceedingly mad with this distemper prior to his con- 
version — so mad that he verily thought he ought to 
do many things contrary to Jesus and his humble 
disciples. In every country where persecution has 
raged, the mischiefs have originated in party spirit, 
party intemperance, and censorious judging. 

In the political struggles of our country, we have 
had much evidence of the mischievous effects of 
party intemperance. In some instances it has seem- 

H 



102. LETTERS 

ed as if almost the whole population of the country 
were in a state of intoxication at the same time. Men 
of rank and respectability in society have, on such 
occasions, been too often seen to act like mad men, 
rather than like themselves, in sober moments. But 
times of political excitement have not been the only 
occasions, on which party intemperance has disgraced 
the American character. What should be said of 
our religious or anti-religious scenes of party intem- 
perance ? How often have the professed disciples of 
Him who was meek and lowly been so intoxicated by 
party passions as to feel above all obligations to sub- 
mit to the precepts of their Lord, in regard to judg- 
ing one another, and doing to others as they would 
that others should do unto them ? How often have 
even whole sects been denounced, including thou- 
sands of whom the defamer was wholly ignorant, as 
to their moral characters ! Those who have witnes- 
sed scenes of intoxication by hard drinking, may 
have observed how strangely men will talk when their 
passions are excited by strong drink ; how unguard- 
ed they often are in their remarks ; how bitter in 
their revilings, and how foolish in their pretended 
reasonings. Similar things are witnessed in men 
when intoxicated with party spirit. 

The inquiry naturally occurs, Is there no remedy 
for party intemperance ? Must the Christian religion 
be forever thus disgraced by its professed admirers 
and votaries. For a time it seemed a hopeless en- 
terprise to attempt a suppression of the other species 
of intemperance. Soon, however, a hope was exci- 



TO CHRISTIANS. 103 

ted that by due exertions many moderate drinkers 
might be induced to give up their habit before they 
should pass the bounds of temperance ; and that ma- 
ny might be saved from forming the habit of moder- 
ate drinking. It was hardly expected that men might 
be reclaimed who had advanced far in the road of 
intoxication. Their case was deemed nearly hope- 
less. It was, however, found that the moderate use 
of ardent spirits at stated periods, exposed men of 
become drunkards ; that by daily indulgence a thirst 
was excited which endangered both body and soul, 
— and that entire abstinence from the use of ardent 
spirits was the path of safety. Many thousands have 
become convinced of this, and have adopted the pol- 
icy, — among whom are an unexpected number of 
those who were supposed to be past recovery, and 
bound over by intemperate habits to perish as drunk- 
ards. What happy results of a few years exertion ! 
When all the evils of party intemperance shall 
have been disclosed, they may be found not less ter- 
rific and portentous than the evils of intemperate 
drinking. Why then shall not Christians of all de- 
nominations unite and adopt the same saving policy 
for both species of intemperance — and resolve on 
total abstinence from party spirit as well as from liquid 
fire? Should this policy be cordially and universally, 
or even generally adopted, it is believed that im- 
mense advantages would speedily result to the cause 
of religion, as well as to individual and social happi- 
ness. There is perhaps no case in reference to which 
it may be more safely said, " the tongue is a fire, a 



104 LETTERS 

world of iniquity ; it setteth on fire the course of na- 
ture, and is set on fire of hell," than when it is em- 
ployed in censorious judging, under the control of 
party passions. By due obedience to the new com- 
mandment, the work of thorough reformation would 
be effected. This would imply total abstinence from 
party spirit, the great source of mischief among 
Christians. For it was not party affection that Christ 
exercised towards his disciples, but pure, impartial, 
and forbearing love. This had been the source of 
all his conduct towards them when he said — " This 
is my commandment, that ye love one another as I 
have loved you." With the same love he prayed for 
all his disciples, that they all might be one even as he 
and the Father are one. To this precept and this 
prayer let the heart and tongue of every Christian 
say, Amen. — Such a revival of religion would diffuse 
joy throughout heaven and earth. 



LETTER XVII. 

THE GOSPEL REMEDY FOR CONTENTION. 

My Christian Brethren, 

It would be useless to investigate the causes of 
a malady and display its evils, if God had failed to 



TO CHRISTIANS. 105 

provide a remedy. What has been said in preced- 
ing letters may seem to have anticipated the purpose 
of the present ; but the importance of the subject 
may justify further attempt for elucidation. 

Admitting the correctness of Solomon's maxim — 
" Only by pride cometh contention/' we may nat- 
urally infer that humility is both a preventive and a 
remedy — a preventive if adopted in season, and a 
remedy if duly applied after the disease has occur- 
red. 

The first contention among the professed disciples 
of the Messiah, of which we have any account, oc- 
curred among the Twelve, whom he had selected 
for apostles — on the question, " who is the greatest 
in the kingdom of heaven 1" — Or as Luke more de- 
finitely states the case, " There was a strife among 
them which of them should be the greatest." What 
but pride could have originated this contention ? 
What but humility was wanting to have prevented 
it ? And what but humility could be a proper re- 
medy after the strife had occurred ? This was in 
fact the remedy prescribed by the great Physician. 
As was observed in a preceding letter, the first time 
Christ discoursed with the Twelve concerning their 
strife, " He called a little child and set him in the 
midst of them and said, Verily I say unto you, except 
ye be converted, and become as little children, ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Who- 
soever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little 
child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ,, 
Matt, xviii. 2, 3, 4. Mark and Luke have recorded 



106 LETTERS 

some observations made by our Lord, which were 
omitted by Matthew. " If any man desire to be 
first of all, the same shall be last of all." Mark ix. 
35. " For he that is least among you all, the same 
shall be great" Luke ix. 48. 

Notwithstanding the admonition thus given, Jesus 
had further occasion to interpose his authority and 
instructions, to check the ambition of his disciples, 
and put an end to their strife. It appears to have 
been, after what has been related that James and 
John had the confidence to request the two higher 
offices, or to say to him " Grant unto us that we may 
sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, 
in thy glory." It is evident that the other disciples 
were present when Jesus replied to this request ; 
and what followed his reply I shall state according 
to the translation of Dr. Campbell. 

" The ten having heard this conceived indigna- 
tion against James and John. But Jesus having 
called them together, said to them — " Ye know that 
those who are accounted princes of the nations 
domineer over them, and their great ones exercise 
authority upon them ; but it must not be so among 
you. On the contrary, whosoever would be great 
among you shall be your servant ; and whosoever 
would be chief of all shall be the slave of all. For 
even the Son of man came not to be served, but to 
serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." 
Mark x. 41—45. 

Luke has reported the words of Christ in a differ- 
ent form, but in a manner forcible and impressive : 



TO CHRISTIANS. 107 

" The kings of the nations exercise dominion over 
them, and they who oppress them are styled bene- 
factors. But with you it must be otherwise. Nay, 
let the greatest among you be as the smaller ; and 
him who governeth as he who serveth. For whether 
is greater he who is at table or he who serveth ? Is 
not he that sitteth at table ? Yet I am among you 
as one that serveth." Luke xxii. 25 — 28. 

The discourses of Christ on these occasions were 
illustrative of the principle which he so repeatedly 
announced, " Whosoever exalteth himself shall be 
abased ; and he who humbleth himself shall be ex- 
alted." It seems to have been his purpose to lay 
the axe at the root of the tree of contention, by teach- 
ing that greatness or dignity in his kingdom was not 
to be estimated according to worldly maxims or 
principles, — not by the amount of wealth which a 
person may amass, nor by the splendor of his talents 
or acquirements, nor by the height of his official 
station ; but that in God's esteem, a man is " great" 
in proportion as he possesses a humble and benevo- 
lent mind — a disposition to do or to suffer whatever 
may be necessary to the good of others — a disposition 
" not to be served, but to serve." Hence his own 
example was proposed for their imitation. A similar 
lesson was taught the apostles the evening before the 
crucifixion, when Jesus washed their feet. 

The disposition of mind which was thus made the 
standard of dignity or greatness is the spirit of obe- 
dience. Hence, in the sermon on the mount, Jestfs 
said, " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these 



108 LETTERS 

least commandments," or even the least of these com- 
mandments, " and shall teach men so, shall be called 
least in the kingdom of heaven ;" but whosoever shall 
do and teach them shall be called great in the king- 
dom of heaven." Matt. v. 19. On the same princi- 
ple he also said " Love your enemies, and do good 
and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward 
shall be great, and ye shall be called the Children 
of the highest; for He is good unto the unthank- 
ful and to the evil. Luke vii. 35. The same dis- 
position is by Paul denominated love or charity. 
1 Cor. xiii, which he says " suffereth long and is 
kind — envieth not — vaunteth not itself — is not puffed 
up — doth not behave itself unseemly — seeketh not her 
own." This, too, is what James calls the " wisdom 
that is from above, which is first pure, then peacea- 
ble, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and 
good fruits, without partiality and without hypoc- 
risy ;" and this he mentions in contrast with that 
diabolical wisdom whence cometh envying, strife, 
confusion and every evil work." See James iii. 14 
—17. 

Possessing in perfection the humble, peaceable 
and benevolent temper, " the Son of man came not 
to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ran- 
som for many?" In view of this glorious example, 
John says, " we ought also to lay down our lives for 
the brethren." The meaning is supposed to be this, 
that Christians should possess the same disposition 
that was displayed by Christ, and be ready to do or 
to suffer whatever may be necessary for the happiness 
of others, or the good of the Messiah's kingdom. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 109 

Here I may ask, what can be more obvious than 
that the humble and benevolent temper required 
and exemplified by the Saviour, is totally incompati- 
ble with that bitterness, reviling and contention 
which is so frequently manifested by different sects 
of Christians one towards the other ? Let the prin- 
ciple of spiritual dignity be duly esteemed — let 
Christians know and feel that he only " who hum* 
bleth himself shall be exalted," and let the meek 
and benevolent spirit of the Messiah be manifest- 
ed by the people of the several sects in their treat- 
ment of each other ; then it will be seen that the 
spirit of the Gospel is a remedy for those contentions 
which have so long been a reproach to Christians, 
and a stumbling block to unbelievers. Water is no 
better adapted to extinguish material fire than hu- 
mility is to put out the fires of contention among 
brethren. But all liquids are not adapted to quench 
fire. Brandy, if poured on ever so abundantly, would 
increase the flame. In like manner party spirit — 
which too frequently passes for religion, only serves 
to increase the flames of strife, and to destroy the 
happiness of society. 

Humility disposes a person to be jealous of him- 
self, and to observe his own imperfections. The 
humble man will naturally discover many defects in 
himself, which are not visible to others, and which 
perhaps he cannot see in them. Hence it will be an 
object of his care " not to think more highly of him- 
self than he ought to think," and to be one of the 
number of Christians who comply with another of 



110 LETTERS 

PauPs exhortations: — " Doing nothing through con- 
tention or vain glory ; but in humility of mind esteem- 
ing others better than yourselves." Philippians ii. 5. 
Newcornbe's translation. 

Humility is not only meek but benevolent and for- 
giving. It seeks to " overcome evil with good." 
Hence it is certain, that the more there is of humili- 
ty among Christians, the less there will be of con- 
tention. Many of the contentions among Christians 
are occasioned by that unruly evil the tongue " which 
setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on 
fire of hell." Now what can be named short of 
death or paralysis, which is more sure to restrain 
the tongue from sarcasm and evil speaking, than hu- 
mility of mind ? The more humble a man is the 
more conscious he is of his own liability to errors of 
the understanding and of the heart ; and this con- 
sciousness united with benevolence will dispose him 
to be candid towards others, and to do unto them as 
he would that they should do unto him. To illus- 
trate the nature of humility, I will state a supposable 
case. 

In a time of great excitement and party strife, a 
minister sits down to write a sermon in vindication 
of some disputed doctrine, which he believes to be 
of great importance. But having failed to call hu- 
mility to his aid, he writes under the influence of 
party passions. As he proceeds, he grows warmer 
and warmer, with feelings of contempt or resentment 
towards all who have opposed his doctrine. He is 
not contented with producing arguments in its favor ; 



TO CHRISTIANS. Ill 

he must give vent to his passions against dissenters. 
He boldly accuses them of gross errors in their inter- 
pretations of the Scriptures ; and imputes these errors 
to the wickedness of their hearts ; and fails not to 
reproach them either as heretics or as bigots. Thus, 
while he wantonly calumniates others as destitute of 
the gospel temper, he evinces a deplorable defect 
in his own heart. But prior to the time for deliver- 
ing his discourse, some affecting event of providence 
occurs that calls him to deep reflection, occasions a 
favorable change of feeling, gives humility leave to 
rise and speak for herself. Hence occurs the follow- 
ing soliloquy : — 

c What have I written for a sermon to be delivered 
by myself, as the ambassador of Him who was " meek 
and lowly of heart?" He exercised forbearance to- 
wards his erring Apostles, during the whole course 
of his ministry, though he knew them to be in gross 
errors of opinion ; yet I have reproached hundreds 
of his professed disciples as his enemies ; and have 
said much to excite against them the contempt of 
others. But why all this rashness? They indeed 
differ from me in their interpretations of some passa- 
ges of Scripture ; but if this be a good reason for me 
to be offended with them, why may not they as justly 
be ofFended with me ? Are not some of them at least 
possessed of as good talents as myself? May they 
not have had as good advantages for acquiring knowl- 
edge ? and how do I know that they have been less 
honest and impartial in their inquiries than I have 
been in mine ? How has it happened that I have 



112 LETTERS 

been so forward to accuse them, and yet so backward 
in regard to suspecting myself? Could this be the 
work of humility or benevolence ? Have I done to 
others as I would that they should do to me ? Even 
taking it for granted that they are bad men, is my 
sermon adapted to do them or any body else any 
good ? Will it not give far more proof of wrong in 
me than of wrong in them ? I indeed have accused 
them ; but I have done it with a temper which is the 
reverse of what is required in the gospel of every 
disciple of Christ. I will therefore revise the ser- 
mon, and erase every word which shall appear to me 
inconsistent with that love which worketh no evil to 
its neighbor.' 

Such I think would be the natural operations of 
humility, if allowed to speak in the supposed case ; 
and this illustration is capable of being applied in a 
great variety of different circumstances. If Chris- 
tians would but listen to the dictates of humility, in- 
stead of the suggestions of self-esteem and party 
passions, it is very certain that most of the occasions 
of strife would be avoided — a more salutary charac- 
ter would be given not only to sermons, but to con- 
versations, and to the various publications on religious 
subjects. Should the tongue and the pen be duly 
subjected to the control of such a disposition as in- 
duced " even the Son of Man to come not to be ser- 
ved, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for 
many," it might soon be found a possible thing for 
men of different opinions to be united in affection, 
and to love one another with a pure heart fervently. 



TO CHRISTIANS. 113 

The tender affection which existed between Jesus 
and his Apostles, while they differed so greatly in 
opinion on some important subjects, is a proof that 
unity of opinion is not essential to mutual affection. 
He indeed had occasion to reprove his apostles for 
their ambition and contention ; but he did it in such 
meekness and love that it occasioned no alienation. 
Though he well knew their errors of opinion, he did 
not go about the country denouncing or reproaching 
them, either as heretics or as bigots. Notwithstand- 
ing all their imperfections Jesus loved them to the 
end of his ministry ; and never perhaps did he evince 
towards them more sincere and tender affection than 
in his last interview with them, and in his prayer for 
them, prior to the crucifixion. In what way then 
can Christians of the present age better evince love 
to Christ, than by imitating this benignant and for- 
bearing example, and by obeying his commandment, 
"Love one another as I have loved you V However 
high may be our opinion of his natural dignity, or 
however confident and loud we may be in asserting 
that opinion, this will not insure his approbation. 
He was " meek and lowly of heart/' and it was his 
u meat and drink'' to do his Father's will. If the 
same mind is in us that was in him, we shall be ac- 
knowledged as his friends and disciples indeed. 
Without this we shall be found wanting. For thus 
saith our Lord and Judge — " Not every one that 
saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- 
dom of heaven ; but he that docth the will of my Fa- 
ther who is in heaven J 1 



114 



LETTERS 



LETTER XVIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

My Christian Brethren, 

In preceding letters I have attempted to unveil 
some of the causes and evils of contention among 
Christians, that they may be seen in a true light. It 
has been my aim to write with friendly feelings to- 
wards my brethren of all denominations, — and to 
express my views in a dispassionate and inoffensive 
manner. But if in this I have failed, or should it be 
thought that I have misinterpreted some passages of 
scripture, still I hope that my readers will not regard 
my faults as an excuse for omitting a thorough exam- 
ination of the subject for themselves. For however 
imperfect my efforts may have been, the subject is 
unquestionably of great practical importance. It is 
my belief that duelling can be as easily vindicated 
on Gospel principles, as the mutual revilings of Chris- 
tians of different opinions. So far as any of my writ- 
ings may haveevinced an unkind or a censorious spir- 
it, I would humbly implore the forgiveness of God, 
and the forgiveness of all my fellow Christians who 
have been injured by my remarks, or misled by my 
example. I have doubtless often erred in the opin- 
ions I have expressed, while I verily believed them 
to be correct. As an excuse for such errors I may 
plead the fallibility of my understanding, or the want 



TO CHRISTIANS. 115 

of means to obtain correct views. For my con- 
science bears me witness, that truth has been the ob- 
ject of my inquiries, and that I have never intention- 
ally published erroneous opinions. But if I have 
indulged bitter or unchristian feelings towards any 
of my brethren, for these I have no excuse to make ; 
but must plead guilty, and supplicate for pardoning 
mercy. 

Of the Turks it has been said — " Their religion 
inspires them with contempt and hatred for those of 
another creed." It is to be feared that this may be 
said of too many who bear the name of Christians ; 
but if so, it is " their religion'' — not the religion 
taught by Jesus Christ, which bears such bitter fruit. 
His religion, like the Father from whom it descend- 
ed, seeks the good of all. It is that " wisdom" from 
above, which is " full of mercy and good fruits." 
When I compare with this the wisdom which is fre- 
quently displayed in sectarian strife, the contrast is 
shocking ; and I seem to see a cause for the preva- 
lence of Deism in the most favored countries of Chris- 
tendom. If by any means I should be made to be- 
lieve that the Christian religion has authorized the 
unkind and censorious spirit which has so often agi- 
tated society, I should either doubt its divine origin, 
or relinquish the idea that " God is love." But when 
I perceive that all party bitterness and reviling are 
forbidden by the Gospel, and are the reverse of what 
its precepts enjoin, my faith in the divine origin of 
this religion is really strengthened by observing the 
deplorable contrast. For it then seems unquestion- 



116 LETTERS 

able that a religion so pure, so peaceable, so forgiving, 
and so benignant, must have descended from above ; 
that it could not have been invented by such beings 
as men have been in all past ages. Indeed the char- 
acter of the Christian religion seems to me one of 
the best proofs that there is a God ; that he is wise 
and good \ and that he has made to men a revelation 
of his character and his will. 

To some persons it may be gratifying to know that 
the views I have expressed in this series of letters on 
the evil and danger of ascribing error of opinion to 
wickedness of heart, are not the effect] of recent 
changes in my own mind. When I was a Trinita- 
rian, and nearly forty years ago, I published similar 
views of that principle in what I then wrote to the 
late Dr. Baldwin, on the subject of " Close Commun- 
ion." Very soon after I entered on the work of the 
ministry, I became dissatisfied with the practice of 
referring all error of opinion on religious subjects to 
a criminal source; and also with the practice of re- 
proaching whole sects of Christians as destitute of 
piety, on the ground of their alleged erroneous opin- 
ions, The more I have reflected on the subject since 
that period, the more I have been convinced of the 
injustice and the danger of such practices. The 
more too I have been convinced that such practices 
imply a deplorable want of humility in those who 
adopt them, and an astonishing degree of blindness 
in regard to their own liability to err. 

Some of the views however, which are contained 
in these letters respecting the principle of dignity 



TO CHRISTIANS. 117 

established by the Messiah — his example in his treat- 
ment of his erring and contending apostles, and his 
New Commandment, are of more recent origin in my 
own mind. I cannot but wonder that they did not 
occur to me at an earlier period of my inquiries. If 
these views are correct, it is surely of vast impor- 
tance that they should be diffused, clearly under- 
stood, and reduced to practice by Christians of ev- 
ery name. Should Christians generally, adopt the 
principle of spiritual dignity, as stated by our Lord, 
and conform to his New Commandment in their treat- 
ment of each other while of different opinions, there 
will be further occasion to adopt the animating 
language of David — " Behold how good and how 
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity V s 
The due observance of that one principle, and one 
command would exclude from Christendom all na- 
tional hostilities — all persecution and sectarian strife, 
and fill every Christian country with the blessed 
fruits of love, peace, and joy. Nor is this all ; the 
benign influence would be continually extending the 
boundaries of Christendom till it should embrace all 
the nations of the earth. Then too would be seen a 
cheerful compliance in every land with Paul's exhor- 
tation to the Colossians ; — 

" But now do ye put off all these, anger, wrath, 
malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your 
mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have 
put off the old man with his deeds ; ; and have put on 
the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after 
the image of him that created him ; where there is 

K 



118 LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS. 

neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum- 
cision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free ; but 
Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore as the elect 
of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kind- 
ness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering ; 
forbearing one another, and forgiving one another. 
If any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ 
forgave you, so also do ye. And above all things, 
put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness ; — 
and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which 
also ye are called in one body, — and be ye thankful. " 
Col. iii. 8—15. 

Such a reformation as would result from due con- 
formity to this exhortation, might remove every doubt 
as to the divine origin of the Christian religion, or 
its adaptedness to promote the happiness of mankind, 
both in this world, and in the world to come. To show 
the necessity and importance of such a reformation, 
has been a principal object in writing this series of 
letters, which is now to be closed. The more there 
is in Christians of different sects a disposition to 
contend about " which of them is the greatest," the 
more they need to be changed and reformed. I 
what I have written should on y be the means of ex- 
citing in myself and a few of my brethren a more 
due consideration of what Christ said to his apostles 
when he saw them thus contending, my labors will 
not have been in vain ; and that these letters may be 
of use to myself, as well as to others, is the ardent 
desire of your ffectionate brother. 

April, 1831. NOAH WORCESTER. 



POSTSCRIPT. 

As a proof that I have not been alone in my 
views of the present state of Christians, I subjoin 
the following passage from the writings of the late 
celebrated Robert Hall. The extract is from the 
first paragraph of what he wrote " On the Terms of 
Communion. " 

* To see Christian societies regarding each other 
with the jealousies of rival empires, each aiming to 
raise itself on the ruin of all others, making extrava- 
gant boasts of superior purity, generally in exact 
proportion to their departure from it, and scarcely 
deigning to acknowledge the possibility of obtaining 
salvation out of their pale, is the odious and dis- 
gusting spectacle which modern Christianity pre- 
sents. The bond of charity, which unites the gen- 
uine followers of Christ in distinction from the world 
is dissolved ; and the very terms, by which it was 
wont to be denoted, exclusively employed to express 
a predilection for a sect. The evils which result 
from this state of division are incalculable. It sup- 
plies infidels with their most plausible topics of in- 
vective. It hardens the consciences of the irreli- 
gious, weakens the hands of the good, impedes the 
efficacy of prayer, and is probably the principal 
obstruction to that ample effusion of the Spirit which 
is essential to the renovation of the world." 

After the whole series of Letters to Christians 
had been prepared for the press, I opened the first 
volume of Mr. Hall's writings, and my attention 
was soon attracted by the passage which has now 
been copied. It struck my mind as a remarkable 



120 POSTSCRIPT. 

epitome of what I had written. The first sentence, 
however, seemed to contain more of severity than 
I had allowed myself to express. But if it be a 
truth that rival sects are chargeable with '• making 
extravagant boasts of superior purity, generally in ex- 
act proportion to their departure from it," what can 
be of greater importance to them than that this truth 
should be understood ? A due consideration of the 
nature of humility, as contrasted with pride, will per- 
haps justify the sentiment expressed by Mr. Hall ; and 
in this manner, though dead, he now speaks to the 
Christian world. May his admirers of every sect 
duly hearken to his admonitory voice, and exert 
themselves to correct the evils of which he complain- 
ed. In proportion as Christians shall possess the 
true spirit of the Gospel, they must desire to see a 
reformation of such lamentable evils and inconsis- 
tencies. 

Perhaps there are few persons of any sect of Chris- 
tians who will object to the foregoing letters, if they 
can make themselves believe that the remarks which 
imply blame were meant to be applied only to such 
as dissent from their creed ; yet many may be dis- 
pleased, from an apprehension that inconsistency 
has been intentionally imputed to themselves or their 
party. Let it then be observed, that I have written 
the letters in the belief that there are errors — both 
of opinion and practice, in all the denominations of 
Christians with which I am acquainted ; and in the 
hope that there are good people in each sect, who 
will deplore the existing evils, and exert their influ- 
ence to effect a reformation. N. W. 



J\ i J X7 






UBBARY OF CONURKS 



00212129689 




m 






